Halo 2.5/3.5

Honestly? Why not? Because it will stagnate? I would like to point out that there hasn’t been a classic Halo game (not including the MCC) in 7 years; why not just throw us “purists” a bone? why not make a game that is Halo 2.5 or Halo 3.5? Wait for something to stagnate to change it; don’t assume that it will automatically. There were small changes from CE to 2 to 3, but those three games stuck with a proven formula of guns, grenades, and melee. Why add another element? The skill gap was already enormous in Halo 2/3, so why change it? I also understand that 343 wants to make the game theirs, but the best way to do that wold be to return Halo to its glory days; make a game with all the accessibility features of Reach (eg. roster list, file sharing), the features of 4 (eg. Spartan Ops but without awful reused maps, firefight), and the gameplay of 2/3. Then, if they want to experiment with some sort of fast-paced thruster pack dodging, sprint running, ground pounding, ADS induced (yes, it is ADS, you are literally aiming down the sight) game it can be a side project; then, if it catches on, and there is a demand for an additional sandbox in the game, it should be included. My point is this- save all these experimental features from Halo 5 for another title which won’t break the series if it fails. If Halo 5 fails, then there won’t be much left of Halo, which would be really sad. Make a Halo 5: Defenders or something and save all of that stuff that people are split on for a game that isn’t a “make or break” for the series. And wait (at least until the ideas are proven) to then add them to Halo 6. As for what Halo 5 should be then, I again ask, why not Halo 2.5 or 3.5? Who would be mad about that? It would sell like hot cakes, too.

Please refrain from outright insults, as (which you may have noticed) I didn’t include any, so neither should you.

TL;DR: why not make Halo 2.5/3.5 and save this for a side game like ODST was?

EDIT: something to note- if all this stuff is toggle-able, then this whole debate is moot because I will simply play the classic playlists and those who want to will not

Thoughts?

I’d be okay with this.

You have the MCC wait for it to be fixed properly you will be happy then Halo 5 does not need to be the same it needs to change and improve on the current formula which I feel it is doing.

I thought Halo 2 Anniversary was your bone…

You have your bone. It’s called the MCC.

If they did a halo 2.5/3.5, it wouldn’t be a bad game but it would be sales suicide. Confused? Let me try to explain.

Halo 2 was 10 years ago, I remember playing it for the first time and being stunned by it’s gameplay. The same way I was stunned by Goldeneye…and that game is dated as hell.
My point is that times change, people want newer experiences even if it isn’t as balanced or whatever as it’s predecessors. Look at chess, it’s a perfectly balanced game that boils down to skill. There is nothing wrong with chess but if you sold a triple-A chess video game it would fail.

Halo isn’t alone anymore. People have lots of choice nowadays in the FPS department. To the average gamer that plays FPS, what sounds more interesting to them? Halo 3.5 or a game like Battlefield with 64 players and fully destructible environments? BR starts on every match in a game with slower movement or a game that starts differently everytime with the ability to call in giant mechs?

Again, there’s nothing wrong with it. But it won’t sell, and then Halo will slowly die and be kept alive only by the most hardcore players. Halo will show that it could set the benchmark for console FPS and then be stuck in it’s ways forever. Reduced to a one trick pony.

I thought halo 2.5 had just been released. Its called Halo 2 anniversary.

Its absurd! All these ppl saying they want an updated Halo 2. Then saying anniversary doesn’t count/

> 2533274827007197;6:
> I thought halo 2.5 had just been released. Its called Halo 2 anniversary.
>
> Its absurd! All these ppl saying they want an updated Halo 2. Then saying anniversary doesn’t count/

No, we want an updated HALO 3.

> 2535445390271381;7:
> > 2533274827007197;6:
> > I thought halo 2.5 had just been released. Its called Halo 2 anniversary.
> >
> > Its absurd! All these ppl saying they want an updated Halo 2. Then saying anniversary doesn’t count/
>
>
> No, we want an updated HALO 3.

You’ll get it in 3 more years.

> 2535445390271381;7:
> > 2533274827007197;6:
> > I thought halo 2.5 had just been released. Its called Halo 2 anniversary.
> >
> > Its absurd! All these ppl saying they want an updated Halo 2. Then saying anniversary doesn’t count/
>
>
> No, we want an updated HALO 3.

I assume just wait till 2017.

I wonder if they can link Halo 3 Anniversary (and halo 5) to the MCC so you can access the new campaigns from the same menu as long as you have purchased them.

> 2533274812974209;4:
> I thought Halo 2 Anniversary was your bone…

It would be, but its not a full game- thats my point. Why not stick with a proven formula and make a side game for experimental features?

> 2533274833600810;5:
> You have your bone. It’s called the MCC.

Addressed above ^

> 2533274833600810;5:
> If they did a halo 2.5/3.5, it wouldn’t be a bad game but it would be sales suicide. Confused? Let me try to explain.

How? They would make bank; they would be making two different games, probably on the same engine even

> 2533274833600810;5:
> Halo 2 was 10 years ago, I remember playing it for the first time and being stunned by it’s gameplay. The same way I was stunned by Goldeneye…and that game is dated as hell.
> My point is that times change, people want newer experiences even if it isn’t as balanced or whatever as it’s predecessors. Look at chess, it’s a perfectly balanced game that boils down to skill. There is nothing wrong with chess but if you sold a triple-A chess video game it would fail.

Halo 2 being 10 years ago and Halo 3 being 7 years ago doesn’t mean anything; the gameplay and story still hold up. I do however, agree, that the graphics/resolution/framerate are dated (hence, why Halo 2 got the treatment it did). That is the reason that they need to be updated, just like what Street Fighter IV is doing- they know they have a good thing going, and, rather than making a new game, they keep updating that one. The chess analogy falls apart because chess doesn’t translate well into a video game setting as it is a low pressure setting, meaning that you have time (minutes) to think about your moves. Halo, on the other hand, is a high pressure setting, meaning that you have only split seconds to formulate a plan. And to imply that an old style Halo wouldn’t sell is simply false. Xbox One sales tripled the week of the MCC release, you know. The fact that people would essentially spend $400 on a classic experience means that the demand is obviously there.

> 2533274833600810;5:
> Halo isn’t alone anymore. People have lots of choice nowadays in the FPS department. To the average gamer that plays FPS, what sounds more interesting to them? Halo 3.5 or a game like Battlefield with 64 players and fully destructible environments? BR starts on every match in a game with slower movement or a game that starts differently everytime with the ability to call in giant mechs?

You’re right, it isn’t alone. However, it never has been. Halo 3 competed with CoD 4, WaW, MW2, and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (mostly considered to be the best of their respective franchises) and still maintained #1/2 status for the number of people playing the game at any given point. And I think you’re missing the point of Halo- it isn’t meant for the average person. The average person is one who will get the game, play it for a month or two, and drop it as soon as the next AAA title comes along. Halo 3.5 would appeal to a niche audience, as it is meant to bring something no other game can, which is a game focused on control and gun skill, rather than optimizing loadouts and essentially playing a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors; that is why it had traditionally been a slower moving game. And who says you have to have BR starts? Some of my favorite times were on Halo 3 Action Sack playlist, with games like Zeus and Splockets. Halo is that game you play when you want to play a game that rewards skill, rather than time (though, often the two come hand in hand). The casual player might not play Halo, but they sure aren’t playing anything else for long. And besides, the casuals would just go to Halo 5: Defenders or whatever they would name it and play that for those few months, and if those elements truly add skill to the game, then they could be added into Halo 6.

> 2533274833600810;5:
> Again, there’s nothing wrong with it. But it won’t sell, and then Halo will slowly die and be kept alive only by the most hardcore players. Halo will show that it could set the benchmark for console FPS and then be stuck in it’s ways forever. Reduced to a one trick pony.

It would sell, as evidenced by the MCC. And it wouldn’t slowly die, as any new innovations that are healthy for the game would be added in after testing in a game that doesn’t define the franchise. And as I recall, it was setting the standard for FPS until Halo: Reach, where they changed the formula. I hardly see how it would be a one trick pony if they did this… The thing about Halo 5: Guardians is that it’s a “make or break” game. If this game does poorly, I just don’t see the franchise coming back, honestly. For that reason alone, 343i needs to play it extremely safe. Make Halo 5 Halo 3.5 for now, release a side project similar to ODST, add what works. It’s the best way to add innovative and creative ideas without alienating either community.

> 2533274840212973;10:
> > 2533274812974209;4:
> > I thought Halo 2 Anniversary was your bone…
>
>
>
> It would be, but its not a full game- thats my point. Why not stick with a proven formula and make a side game for experimental features?
>
> > 2533274833600810;5:
> > You have your bone. It’s called the MCC.
>
>
>
> Addressed above ^
>
> > 2533274833600810;5:
> > If they did a halo 2.5/3.5, it wouldn’t be a bad game but it would be sales suicide. Confused? Let me try to explain.
>
>
>
> How? They would make bank; they would be making two different games, probably on the same engine even
>
> > 2533274833600810;5:
> > Halo 2 was 10 years ago, I remember playing it for the first time and being stunned by it’s gameplay. The same way I was stunned by Goldeneye…and that game is dated as hell.
> > My point is that times change, people want newer experiences even if it isn’t as balanced or whatever as it’s predecessors. Look at chess, it’s a perfectly balanced game that boils down to skill. There is nothing wrong with chess but if you sold a triple-A chess video game it would fail.
>
>
>
> Halo 2 being 10 years ago and Halo 3 being 7 years ago doesn’t mean anything; the gameplay and story still hold up. I do however, agree, that the graphics/resolution/framerate are dated (hence, why Halo 2 got the treatment it did). That is the reason that they need to be updated, just like what Street Fighter IV is doing- they know they have a good thing going, and, rather than making a new game, they keep updating that one. The chess analogy falls apart because chess doesn’t translate well into a video game setting as it is a low pressure setting, meaning that you have time (minutes) to think about your moves. Halo, on the other hand, is a high pressure setting, meaning that you have only split seconds to formulate a plan. And to imply that an old style Halo wouldn’t sell is simply false. Xbox One sales tripled the week of the MCC release, you know. The fact that people would essentially spend $400 on a classic experience means that the demand is obviously there.
>
> > 2533274833600810;5:
> > Halo isn’t alone anymore. People have lots of choice nowadays in the FPS department. To the average gamer that plays FPS, what sounds more interesting to them? Halo 3.5 or a game like Battlefield with 64 players and fully destructible environments? BR starts on every match in a game with slower movement or a game that starts differently everytime with the ability to call in giant mechs?
>
>
>
> You’re right, it isn’t alone. However, it never has been. Halo 3 competed with CoD 4, WaW, MW2, and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (mostly considered to be the best of their respective franchises) and still maintained #1/2 status for the number of people playing the game at any given point. And I think you’re missing the point of Halo- it isn’t meant for the average person. The average person is one who will get the game, play it for a month or two, and drop it as soon as the next AAA title comes along. Halo 3.5 would appeal to a niche audience, as it is meant to bring something no other game can, which is a game focused on control and gun skill, rather than optimizing loadouts and essentially playing a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors; that is why it had traditionally been a slower moving game. And who says you have to have BR starts? Some of my favorite times were on Halo 3 Action Sack playlist, with games like Zeus and Splockets. Halo is that game you play when you want to play a game that rewards skill, rather than time (though, often the two come hand in hand). The casual player might not play Halo, but they sure aren’t playing anything else for long. And besides, the casuals would just go to Halo 5: Defenders or whatever they would name it and play that for those few months, and if those elements truly add skill to the game, then they could be added into Halo 6.
>
> > 2533274833600810;5:
> > Again, there’s nothing wrong with it. But it won’t sell, and then Halo will slowly die and be kept alive only by the most hardcore players. Halo will show that it could set the benchmark for console FPS and then be stuck in it’s ways forever. Reduced to a one trick pony.
>
>
> It would sell, as evidenced by the MCC. And it wouldn’t slowly die, as any new innovations that are healthy for the game would be added in after testing in a game that doesn’t define the franchise. And as I recall, it was setting the standard for FPS until Halo: Reach, where they changed the formula. I hardly see how it would be a one trick pony if they did this… The thing about Halo 5: Guardians is that it’s a “make or break” game. If this game does poorly, I just don’t see the franchise coming back, honestly. For that reason alone, 343i needs to play it extremely safe. Make Halo 5 Halo 3.5 for now, release a side project similar to ODST, add what works. It’s the best way to add innovative and creative ideas without alienating either community.

MCC sold well because people wanted to relive their memories with Halo. Not to mention there isn’t much on xbox to play anyways. Playing it safe for Halo 5? Halo needs to change if it’s going to survive. What about it is so gamebreaking anyways? We have fair starts, weapons on map, and 343 was able to add in the illusion of ADS, the function is the exact same as normal zoom. If we can’t even accept ADS as a purely cosmetic change that doesn’t break the game at all, and only serves to make the experience more immersive and draw in more players, then what kind of toxic community are we? There has to be a middle ground for the newer modern age of shooters and for Halo’s core elements.

The formula is still there, Halo is still there. How long do you think the same thing will work for? Quake is a series that never changed and it’s still a great series. You’ll never see it sell like modern games do though. People went into Halo 4 knowing that it was different than the trilogy. It still had armor abilities, it had ordnance and everyone knew yet they still bought it. It didn’t work out in the end but people still bought into it because it seemed new and refreshing.

> 2533274833600810;11:
> MCC sold well because people wanted to relive their memories with Halo. Not to mention there isn’t much on xbox to play anyways. Playing it safe for Halo 5? Halo needs to change if it’s going to survive. What about it is so gamebreaking anyways? We have fair starts, weapons on map, and 343 was able to add in the illusion of ADS, the function is the exact same as normal zoom. If we can’t even accept ADS as a purely cosmetic change that doesn’t break the game at all, and only serves to make the experience more immersive and draw in more players, then what kind of toxic community are we? There has to be a middle ground for the newer modern age of shooters and for Halo’s core elements.
>
> The formula is still there, Halo is still there. How long do you think the same thing will work for? Quake is a series that never changed and it’s still a great series. You’ll never see it sell like modern games do though. People went into Halo 4 knowing that it was different than the trilogy. It still had armor abilities, it had ordnance and everyone knew yet they still bought it. It didn’t work out in the end but people still bought into it because it seemed new and refreshing.

The MCC sold so well becaue of several things, but probably because it was the return of a truly competitive Halo. Just look at the startup of the Halo Championship Series and the several tournaments before launch. It clearly is meant to cater to those who are into that sort of thing. And yet, it still sold like hot cakes. THAT is what people want- a game that is deceptively complex; something that Halo hasn’t had in a long time. I really don’t care that much about ADS (like I said, it is, you are literally aiming down the sight) but more about things like spawning with something thats one hit (shoulder charge, ground pound), infinite sprint (I shudder thinking about this), clamboring, and thruster pack, all of which serving to lessen the skill gap by giving bad players a crutch to get out of situations they put themselves in. I know they tried to balance sprint, but even the no sheild regen would still allow you to get to cover and lob nades or run to teammates, especially with the help of thruster pack. And I don’t think I need to explain why spawning with a one shot anything isn’t good for the game. Imagine if everyone spawned with the boltshot: the game may be balanced, but it’s still full of BS. Not to mention how much of a nightmare it will be to make decent maps in this system, meaning that you’re only gonna have maybe 1 or 2 really good ones because they simply won’t have the time to perfect them to allow for all abilities to be balanced. I agree that there is a middle ground, but you can’t let a game that is the lynch pin of a franchise’s success be a gamble that it doesn’t have a track record of winning. To find it though, should be done through a side project, like ODST.

The formula is still there in the sense that it exists within the game, but is no longer the focus. It is an addition of another sandbox of abilities to the guns, grenades, and melee triangle. This is a huge change, and one that begs the question- why? why change what isn’t broken? To be modern? I say that people don’t want “modern”; they want good games. That’s why you see tons of games emulating retro style. Thats why you see so many people getting mad that the formula is changing; they don’t want modern, they want proven quality. And until these changes are proven to be good, why should they be added? People were OK with Bungie making changes without doing this because they invented the game style and had shown they could make a good game. 343i, on the other hand, has only made Halo 4, otherwise known as CoD: Spartan Warfare. Not to mention, several of the ideas for Halo 5 are taken from that game which, I think most of us would rather forget. Because of this, they need to do things like a beta a year before launch and other things such as side projects to demonstrate competent ideas.

> 2533274812974209;4:
> I thought Halo 2 Anniversary was your bone…

This.

> 2533274840212973;12:
> > 2533274833600810;11:
> > MCC sold well because people wanted to relive their memories with Halo. Not to mention there isn’t much on xbox to play anyways. Playing it safe for Halo 5? Halo needs to change if it’s going to survive. What about it is so gamebreaking anyways? We have fair starts, weapons on map, and 343 was able to add in the illusion of ADS, the function is the exact same as normal zoom. If we can’t even accept ADS as a purely cosmetic change that doesn’t break the game at all, and only serves to make the experience more immersive and draw in more players, then what kind of toxic community are we? There has to be a middle ground for the newer modern age of shooters and for Halo’s core elements.
> >
> > The formula is still there, Halo is still there. How long do you think the same thing will work for? Quake is a series that never changed and it’s still a great series. You’ll never see it sell like modern games do though. People went into Halo 4 knowing that it was different than the trilogy. It still had armor abilities, it had ordnance and everyone knew yet they still bought it. It didn’t work out in the end but people still bought into it because it seemed new and refreshing.
>
>
>
>
> The MCC sold so well becaue of several things, but probably because it was the return of a truly competitive Halo. Just look at the startup of the Halo Championship Series and the several tournaments before launch. It clearly is meant to cater to those who are into that sort of thing. And yet, it still sold like hot cakes. THAT is what people want- a game that is deceptively complex; something that Halo hasn’t had in a long time. I really don’t care that much about ADS (like I said, it is, you are literally aiming down the sight) but more about things like spawning with something thats one hit (shoulder charge, ground pound), infinite sprint (I shudder thinking about this), clamboring, and thruster pack, all of which serving to lessen the skill gap by giving bad players a crutch to get out of situations they put themselves in. I know they tried to balance sprint, but even the no sheild regen would still allow you to get to cover and lob nades or run to teammates, especially with the help of thruster pack. And I don’t think I need to explain why spawning with a one shot anything isn’t good for the game. Imagine if everyone spawned with the boltshot: the game may be balanced, but it’s still full of BS. Not to mention how much of a nightmare it will be to make decent maps in this system, meaning that you’re only gonna have maybe 1 or 2 really good ones because they simply won’t have the time to perfect them to allow for all abilities to be balanced. I agree that there is a middle ground, but you can’t let a game that is the lynch pin of a franchise’s success be a gamble that it doesn’t have a track record of winning. To find it though, should be done through a side project, like ODST.
>
> The formula is still there in the sense that it exists within the game, but is no longer the focus. It is an addition of another sandbox of abilities to the guns, grenades, and melee triangle. This is a huge change, and one that begs the question- why? why change what isn’t broken? To be modern? I say that people don’t want “modern”; they want good games. That’s why you see tons of games emulating retro style. Thats why you see so many people getting mad that the formula is changing; they don’t want modern, they want proven quality. And until these changes are proven to be good, why should they be added? People were OK with Bungie making changes without doing this because they invented the game style and had shown they could make a good game. 343i, on the other hand, has only made Halo 4, otherwise known as CoD: Spartan Warfare. Not to mention, several of the ideas for Halo 5 are taken from that game which, I think most of us would rather forget. Because of this, they need to do things like a beta a year before launch and other things such as side projects to demonstrate competent ideas.

Comparing Halo 4 to Advanced Warfare just made me take you less seriously. Halo 4 was a misstep but Halo 5 will be great because of it. And I wouldn’t act like Bungie are golden gods, they made Reach which is hated. They also had other ideas for Halo’s multplayer that they didn’t have the time or resources to do. Also look at Destiny to see how great Bungie is now :confused:

> 2533274840212973;1:
> Honestly? Why not? Because it will stagnate? I would like to point out that there hasn’t been a classic Halo game (not including the MCC).

So, you’re complaining there hasn’t been a classic Halo game, apart from the classic Halo game?

> Blinky 909 wrote:
> Please refrain from outright insults, as (which you may have noticed) I didn’t include any.

This is incorrect. You’re insulting my intelligence.

> 2533274840212973;12:
> > 2533274833600810;11:
> > MCC sold well because people wanted to relive their memories with Halo. Not to mention there isn’t much on xbox to play anyways. Playing it safe for Halo 5? Halo needs to change if it’s going to survive. What about it is so gamebreaking anyways? We have fair starts, weapons on map, and 343 was able to add in the illusion of ADS, the function is the exact same as normal zoom. If we can’t even accept ADS as a purely cosmetic change that doesn’t break the game at all, and only serves to make the experience more immersive and draw in more players, then what kind of toxic community are we? There has to be a middle ground for the newer modern age of shooters and for Halo’s core elements.
> >
> > The formula is still there, Halo is still there. How long do you think the same thing will work for? Quake is a series that never changed and it’s still a great series. You’ll never see it sell like modern games do though. People went into Halo 4 knowing that it was different than the trilogy. It still had armor abilities, it had ordnance and everyone knew yet they still bought it. It didn’t work out in the end but people still bought into it because it seemed new and refreshing.
>
>
> The MCC sold so well becaue of several things, but probably because it was the return of a truly competitive Halo. Just look at the startup of the Halo Championship Series and the several tournaments before launch. It clearly is meant to cater to those who are into that sort of thing. And yet, it still sold like hot cakes. THAT is what people want- a game that is deceptively complex; something that Halo hasn’t had in a long time. I really don’t care that much about ADS (like I said, it is, you are literally aiming down the sight) but more about things like spawning with something thats one hit (shoulder charge, ground pound), infinite sprint (I shudder thinking about this), clamboring, and thruster pack, all of which serving to lessen the skill gap by giving bad players a crutch to get out of situations they put themselves in. I know they tried to balance sprint, but even the no sheild regen would still allow you to get to cover and lob nades or run to teammates, especially with the help of thruster pack. And I don’t think I need to explain why spawning with a one shot anything isn’t good for the game. Imagine if everyone spawned with the boltshot: the game may be balanced, but it’s still full of BS. Not to mention how much of a nightmare it will be to make decent maps in this system, meaning that you’re only gonna have maybe 1 or 2 really good ones because they simply won’t have the time to perfect them to allow for all abilities to be balanced. I agree that there is a middle ground, but you can’t let a game that is the lynch pin of a franchise’s success be a gamble that it doesn’t have a track record of winning. To find it though, should be done through a side project, like ODST.
>
> The formula is still there in the sense that it exists within the game, but is no longer the focus. It is an addition of another sandbox of abilities to the guns, grenades, and melee triangle. This is a huge change, and one that begs the question- why? why change what isn’t broken? To be modern? I say that people don’t want “modern”; they want good games. That’s why you see tons of games emulating retro style. Thats why you see so many people getting mad that the formula is changing; they don’t want modern, they want proven quality. And until these changes are proven to be good, why should they be added? People were OK with Bungie making changes without doing this because they invented the game style and had shown they could make a good game. 343i, on the other hand, has only made Halo 4, otherwise known as CoD: Spartan Warfare. Not to mention, several of the ideas for Halo 5 are taken from that game which, I think most of us would rather forget. Because of this, they need to do things like a beta a year before launch and other things such as side projects to demonstrate competent ideas.

They haven’t changed the formula of old they have just added to it the past formula is still there and what are you complaining about? Then you have a beta before launch which is at least a year roughly before the game comes out so you can play and try these things and decide if you like the changes or not by actually spending some time with them what is the big deal?

Also they have to be added so they can try these things to prove they work if no one ever added anything how would we know it works we would just be stuck with the same old games over and over and over that would get boring very fast.

> 2533274840212973;12:
> > 2533274833600810;11:
> > MCC sold well because people wanted to relive their memories with Halo. Not to mention there isn’t much on xbox to play anyways. Playing it safe for Halo 5? Halo needs to change if it’s going to survive. What about it is so gamebreaking anyways? We have fair starts, weapons on map, and 343 was able to add in the illusion of ADS, the function is the exact same as normal zoom. If we can’t even accept ADS as a purely cosmetic change that doesn’t break the game at all, and only serves to make the experience more immersive and draw in more players, then what kind of toxic community are we? There has to be a middle ground for the newer modern age of shooters and for Halo’s core elements.
> >
> > The formula is still there, Halo is still there. How long do you think the same thing will work for? Quake is a series that never changed and it’s still a great series. You’ll never see it sell like modern games do though. People went into Halo 4 knowing that it was different than the trilogy. It still had armor abilities, it had ordnance and everyone knew yet they still bought it. It didn’t work out in the end but people still bought into it because it seemed new and refreshing.
>
>
> The MCC sold so well becaue of several things, but probably because it was the return of a truly competitive Halo. Just look at the startup of the Halo Championship Series and the several tournaments before launch. It clearly is meant to cater to those who are into that sort of thing. And yet, it still sold like hot cakes. THAT is what people want- a game that is deceptively complex; something that Halo hasn’t had in a long time. I really don’t care that much about ADS (like I said, it is, you are literally aiming down the sight) but more about things like spawning with something thats one hit (shoulder charge, ground pound), infinite sprint (I shudder thinking about this), clamboring, and thruster pack, all of which serving to lessen the skill gap by giving bad players a crutch to get out of situations they put themselves in. I know they tried to balance sprint, but even the no sheild regen would still allow you to get to cover and lob nades or run to teammates, especially with the help of thruster pack. And I don’t think I need to explain why spawning with a one shot anything isn’t good for the game. Imagine if everyone spawned with the boltshot: the game may be balanced, but it’s still full of BS. Not to mention how much of a nightmare it will be to make decent maps in this system, meaning that you’re only gonna have maybe 1 or 2 really good ones because they simply won’t have the time to perfect them to allow for all abilities to be balanced. I agree that there is a middle ground, but you can’t let a game that is the lynch pin of a franchise’s success be a gamble that it doesn’t have a track record of winning. To find it though, should be done through a side project, like ODST.
>
> The formula is still there in the sense that it exists within the game, but is no longer the focus. It is an addition of another sandbox of abilities to the guns, grenades, and melee triangle. This is a huge change, and one that begs the question- why? why change what isn’t broken? To be modern? I say that people don’t want “modern”; they want good games. That’s why you see tons of games emulating retro style. Thats why you see so many people getting mad that the formula is changing; they don’t want modern, they want proven quality. And until these changes are proven to be good, why should they be added? People were OK with Bungie making changes without doing this because they invented the game style and had shown they could make a good game. 343i, on the other hand, has only made Halo 4, otherwise known as CoD: Spartan Warfare. Not to mention, several of the ideas for Halo 5 are taken from that game which, I think most of us would rather forget. Because of this, they need to do things like a beta a year before launch and other things such as side projects to demonstrate competent ideas.

until they are proven bad, why shouldn’t they be added?

very well said my dude. Also i just hope and pray that they have a ranking system like halo 2’s and not put on halo waypoint like they did with h4. I just love the competativeness it adds and they could always have social lists like h3 had (if the figure out how to run online gaming).

edit: @blinky 909. you have some very very good points i love what you said but just fyi 343 started halo my dude they made halo: ce. but yes they are trying to modernize way to much. they are so far away from what halo was and should be.