> > What frustrates me the most is those generic “Halo 4 needs to evolve” comments. Then usually they explain “the evolution” they want and it’s usually just taking elements of other games.
> >
> > Reach was a Halo/Shadowrun hybrid and it didn’t turn out too well. If it attempts to be like anything like CoD it’ll be swept aside.
> >
> > So, why doesn’t it go back to it’s own distinct style? It needs to go back to what made it a game talked around the world with the releases of Halo: CE, Halo 2, and to a lesser extent Halo 3. (lesser because, and I make no apologies, CoD 4 was the better MP game in '07. Such a fantastic game in fact people buy it reskinned by the tenfold 4 years later, and I imagine many more years to come)
> >
> > Evolve? No. It needs to take everything what the original trilogy did well and turn that into one full package. Halo perfected. You want innovation? Then 343i should build upon that, but heh… Remember Reach.
>
> And you know what frustrates those who support change/evolution? Those people who are against it, with their generic “if it never was in Halo, it should never be in Halo” point of view…
> Seriously, you can find stupid things on both sides.
>
> You know why Halo needs change? Because it always changed quite a bit between each game, while keeping the typical Halo core intact (until AA’s, and Equipment to a far lesser degree came in the games). Halo never has been a series of lazy expansions on top of the last entry (with the exception of H3 perhaps). Each Halo game is unique in its own way, unlike how CoD does it yearly.
>
> If H4 were to go back to doing what H2 did, fans of H3 and Reach will cry out loud.
> If H4 were to go back to doing what H3 did, fans of H2 and Reach will cry out loud.
> If H4 were to go back to doing what Reach did, fans of H2 and H3 will cry out loud.
> They can’t please every (large) minority, and the fact of the matter is that the Halo community is divided in such groups.
>
> Yes, change sometimes doesn’t work as well as imagined. Look at Reach for that matter. By no means a terrible game (unless you’re too short sighted to see), but not quite as good as it could have been.
>
> But one “failure” (if you can even speak of one, as Reach practically did what it was supposed to do) does not mean no Halo game after it shouldn’t take risks.
> Lets face it:
> H3 felt stale, by doing not enough new things.
> Reach felt a bit off, mainly because of a few AA’s and Bloom…
> But that doesn’t mean that a H4 with some (minor and massive) changes can’t be just as good as CE and H2.
>
> What 343i should do with H4, and I keep on saying this, is take the core of Classic Halo (CE/H2) and build their own Halo on top. Evolution brings the possibility of revitalizing the series, brings the possibility of attracting more mainstream gamers, brings the possibility of once again raising the bar like CE and H2 did.
> Making a Halo 3.5 won’t bring back the massive community, as most of them were not loyal to the series, just to H3 because of hype. And on top, it would probably feel incredibly stale and like a missed chance.
>
> Bottom line: H4 should feel like Halo in it’s own new shiny jacket…
The fact that every Halo game is different is a blessing and a curse. In my opinion I think Halo reached it’s zenith with Halo 2, which is why you find most of the CE and H2 players in the same boat. Halo 2 innovated CE in a positive manner. The games to come should of built upon Halo 2 after that, like IW (or anybody else) did after CoD 4 came along, though I will say MW3 is a joke. A truly mediocre game. Funnily enough, it plays different to CoD 4. Core mechanics. Player movement. Kill times. Smallest skill gap so far. But enough about CoD. That’s not why we’re here.
You could argue Halo 3 did build upon Halo 2, but in my eyes Halo 3 largely was an attempt to make anybody unhappy with Halo 2 happy with Halo 3. We ended up with a stale, boring version of Halo 2 with a terrible hit detection.
I do agree somewhat with what you’re saying though. Without innovation to Halo: CE we wouldn’t of had Halo 2. Thing is with Halo 3 and Reach we’ve been taking steps forward, but for every step forward we take two steps back, and I fear that it’s turning into a trend, especially if 343i gets influenced by other FPSs success. Especially the fact the skill gaps in games are being lowered and lowered. Some people even claim Reach is a casual game! With the ranking system and lowered skill gap we were given can you blame them?
Halo just needs to return to the roots that made it such a phenomenon. It already had the mainstream audience with Halo 2, then it threw it away with Halo 3, then tried to claim it back by trying to appeal to everybody and not being enough like Halo with Reach. As for innovation, I just hope they don’t make don’t do something drastic that’ll slow down the unique fast paced gameplay like equipment and AA’s did, or make it completely unrecognisable.
> I don’t want this thread to turn out like the rest of them, why does everything come down to people arguing with other people opinions
It’s a forum. People come here to debate. What did you expect?
> I can’t see how Halo 3 was just an expansion with added features like Forge, Theatre and Equipment.
>
> People think that Halo 2 and 3 were the best games ever, since everyone played them. But looking back that’s because there wasn’t really any alternative. These days the industry has expanded ten-fold since then. There wasn’t any other game to play, even if you wanted to back in the days of Halo 2. But people don’t tend to remember that.
I completely disagree. There were many games to play back when Halo 2 was released. But Halo 2 was so good everything got overlooked.