Halo 4, Halo, Bungie, 343i, COD

Games Other Halo
1

What is normal?

My opinion of normal might be different from “yours” and, someone else’s view on normal may be different from ours again.

As for COD,some can argue that COD got it right the first time and sticking to that formula has paid off…OK.

But, hasn’t the thought crossed “your” mind that Halo (Bungie) didn’t get it right, hence the changes.

What changes?

Ranks:

Ranks were introduced into Halo 2 MM. They changed for Halo 3 MM. Bungie got it wrong on some fronts. The ranking system Bungie created, unintentionally allowed for boosting, cheating, account selling, enabled people with MICs to belittle and humiliate other players and so much more. So, Bungie essentially did away with ranks but tried something new with Arena, which also failed. This is all called change.

343i took on the Halo mantle and knew of the bad history of the failed ranking systems and tried something new. Surprise, ranking system still fails.

BR:

Bungie was the one that did away with the BR in Halo Reach. It replaced it with the DMR. This is called change.

Weapons come and weapons go:

Bungie created weapons which appear n one Halo game but disappear in another. This is called change.

Play lists:

Bungie had Social and ranked play lists for Halo 3. For Halo Reach, there was essentially just social play lists with the stand alone failed experiment that was Arena. This is called change.

343i at first had nothing but social play lists. Then CSR ranks came in and now there is nothing but ranked play lists, individual and win/loss. From one extreme to another. This is called change.

Halo Waypoint and Bungie communities:

I was on the Bungie forumns. Lots of threads complained about this or that on Halo 3. Bungie listened and change occurred with Halo Reach.

343i took over the Halo mantle and some of the new staff were from Bungie. Many of the complaints about Halo Reach were noted and change was made for Halo 4. Many people on Waypoint complain about Halo 4 and guess what, change hasn’t waited until the next Halo to be implemented but Halo 4 has been fundamentally changed over the past six months.

Population decline:

Halo 3 MM did have a large population. That population became very much smaller long before Halo Reach came out. IMO, according to many threads back over at Bungie site, was the issues with ranking, cheating,boosting, MIC abuse and so on as well as many more games being released onto XBox for people to head off and play. The population that once existed on Halo 3 MM never did transfer over and be emulated on Halo Reach. That was essentially due to the bad history/problems with halo 3 MM and the greater conception in the XBox game market place. And, the Halo Reach population, which was way smaller than Halo 3s, never crossed over onto Halo 4. Constant change and decline. Both Halo Reach and,even more so Halo 4, have had to compete with many, many times more games than Halo 3 ever had to.

The arguments about the Halo 3 population and it being used to somehow point out fault with Halo 4 is erroneous.

Fact:

While “you” and others state that COD got it right first time out and that is why it sticks to its formula, the facts/evidence is that Bungie/343i/Halo has never been MM right and that is why it has been, is and always be in a constant flux of change.

On the other hand, Halo campaigns are freaking awesome.

Related Halo products are great.

…it is just MM that has been in a constant flux of trial and error, trying to find the right formula…constant change.

2

Bungie first introduced a ranking system in halo 2. It is widel regarded as one of the better ranking systems across the series.

Some of the “change” regarding weapons doesn’t really make sense; for example, the assault rifle in reach has 32 bullets in a clip then in halo CE it has 60 and for all intents and purposes stronger. the assault rifle then disappears for the duration of Halo 2 to return in Halo 3 with a 32 bullet clip? Why? where would it make sense to change a weapon like that (as far as canon goes). This can be applied to the DMR and the BR too. They didn’t appear in certain games because they didn’t fit the canon.

3

> <mark>Bungie first introduced a ranking system in halo 2. It is widel regarded as one of the better ranking systems across the series.</mark>
>
> Some of the “change” regarding weapons doesn’t really make sense; for example, the assault rifle in reach has 32 bullets in a clip then in halo CE it has 60 and for all intents and purposes stronger. the assault rifle then disappears for the duration of Halo 2 to return in Halo 3 with a 32 bullet clip? Why? where would it make sense to change a weapon like that (as far as canon goes). This can be applied to the DMR and the BR too. They didn’t appear in certain games because they didn’t fit the canon.

I had no idea. Thank you for alerting me to that.

Was it better than Halo 3s ranking system? If so, why?

4

> What is normal?
> Ranks:
>
> Ranks were introduced into Halo 3 MM. Bungie got it wrong on some fronts. The ranking system Bungie created, unintentionally allowed for boosting, cheating, account selling, enabled people with MICs to belittle and humiliate other players and so much more. So, Bungie essentially did away with ranks but tried something new with Arena, which also failed. This is all called change.
>
> 343i took on the Halo mantle and knew of the bad history of the failed ranking systems and tried something new. Surprise, ranking system still fails.

Yet it also added years of replayability and competitiveness to the game and both Reach/H4 have suffered for taking it out. It may have failed on some levels, but anyone of us who spent countless nights and hundreds of hours getting our 50s in H2/H3 will argue that Halo isn’t Halo without ranks.

I can go on about why ranks are a necessity but there are a thousand other threads for that.

5

The H2 ranking system is seen as a superior ranking system because it’s harder to get to 50. Many sites like halotracker still allow you to see what your rank would be if the H2 system we to be used, and its typically lower than what your rank is in H3 or H4 (although im going to guess the sites manipulate their own stats just a little)

I’m going to go out on a limb, and say that it was more accurate also because people weren’t as experienced in manipulating the system in H2 as they are in H3. People couldn’t get 50s easily, so they weren’t sold.

6

Both halo and call of duty had made significant changes to their core gameplay each game.

But the reason why people find them different is because the feel either game gives off.

In my opinion how call of duty plays gets very stale very fast due to the way it plays.

But halo got it’s “feel” right to me ever since the beginning. And i still continue to get that halo “feel” everytime i play a halo game.

It doesn’t come down to how many changes or how little changes either side makes. It’s how it feels that matters.

Halo in general likes to bring in ideas that could realistically change how things play.

Call of duty in general likes to bring in ideas that enhance already in game play. Who’s to say which is right? That is down to your own opinion. But it is a fact that both series have made great changes over the years. It’s an opinion on which company got it right.

7

> > What is normal?
> > Ranks:
> >
> > Ranks were introduced into Halo 3 MM. Bungie got it wrong on some fronts. The ranking system Bungie created, unintentionally allowed for boosting, cheating, account selling, enabled people with MICs to belittle and humiliate other players and so much more. So, Bungie essentially did away with ranks but tried something new with Arena, which also failed. This is all called change.
> >
> > 343i took on the Halo mantle and knew of the bad history of the failed ranking systems and tried something new. Surprise, ranking system still fails.
>
> Yet it also added years of replayability and competitiveness to the game and both Reach/H4 have suffered for taking it out. <mark>It may have failed on some levels, but anyone of us who spent countless nights and hundreds of hours getting our 50s in H2/H3 will argue that Halo isn’t Halo without ranks.</mark>
>
> I can go on about why ranks are a necessity but there are a thousand other threads for that.

I tip my virtal hat off to you and the others who did the grinding the right way to get your 50s in H2/H3.

I have given Halo 3 a fair go (ranked Lone Wolves) lately, having started out on Halo Reach and, I must say that I find the Halo 3 ranking system, despite its historical faults, fine. I liked the fact that I was matched more often than not with people th same skill level as I; at other times, no more than plus/minus ten.

8

> The H2 ranking system is seen as a superior ranking system because it’s harder to get to 50. Many sites like halotracker still allow you to see what your rank would be if the H2 system we to be used, and its typically lower than what your rank is in H3 or H4 (although im going to guess the sites manipulate their own stats just a little)
>
> I’m going to go out on a limb, and say that it was more accurate also because people weren’t as experienced in manipulating the system in H2 as they are in H3. People couldn’t get 50s easily, so they weren’t sold.

Thank you for teaching me some more about older Halo MM!

9

And Halo 4 missed the mark as well. In my personal experience, Halo 3 is the game that got it right. Others will disagree no doubt, but to me it had the right balance of gunplay, grenades, vehicle combat and “gimmicks” (Equipment). I see what Reach and Halo 4 were trying to do, modernize. Shooters these days tend incorporate loadout-style play that caters to individual playstyles. However, I think that goes against the four things I mentioned up top.

Early on, gunplay was hurt when the DMR and Boltshot dominated. I’d also say thus hurt what Halo 4 was trying to do with loadouts, why pick the Carbine, Lightrifle or Battle Rifle when the DMR dominates? Since then the weapon tuning update patched things up, so lesson learned.

Grenades go right in with vehicle combat in this area. When anybody can spawn with Plasma Grenades and the Plasma Pistol, vehicle’s are death traps. That hasn’t changed.

As far as gimmicks are concerned, armor abilities are ones that do more harm than good. Sure, jetpacking is fun and Promethean Vision can make for some interesting confrontations, maps now have to be made with them in mind. Halo 3’s maps didn’t need to be built around Equipment, Equipment complimented the maps. Now maps have to be made larger enough to sprint around, I know Sprint isn’t an AA anymore.

So in the end, while Halo has tried to modernize, I don’t think it was a successful venture. It turned off some old school fans, failed to impress those from other franchises with similar features and I think that is apparent.

10

> Both halo and call of duty had made significant changes to their core gameplay each game.
>
> But the reason why people find them different is because the feel either game gives off.
>
> In my opinion how call of duty plays gets very stale very fast due to the way it plays.
>
> <mark>But halo got it’s “feel” right to me ever since the beginning. And i still continue to get that halo “feel” everytime i play a halo game.</mark>
>
> It doesn’t come down to how many changes or how little changes either side makes. It’s how it feels that matters.
>
> Halo in general likes to bring in ideas that could realistically change how things play.
>
> Call of duty in general likes to bring in ideas that enhance already in game play. Who’s to say which is right? That is down to your own opinion. But it is a fact that both series have made great changes over the years. It’s an opinion on which company got it right.

I only go on what people on here say about COD as I’m not a COD MM player. But, I have played all the COD campaigns!

I accept what your saying about changes.

As for your mentioning the feel of Halo, I covered that previously by stating that the Halo campaigns have always been freaking awesome. Is that the feel of Halo you mention? As for Halo MM feel, it has been constantly changing, IMO.

11

> > > What is normal?
> > > Ranks:
> > >
> > > Ranks were introduced into Halo 3 MM. Bungie got it wrong on some fronts. The ranking system Bungie created, unintentionally allowed for boosting, cheating, account selling, enabled people with MICs to belittle and humiliate other players and so much more. So, Bungie essentially did away with ranks but tried something new with Arena, which also failed. This is all called change.
> > >
> > > 343i took on the Halo mantle and knew of the bad history of the failed ranking systems and tried something new. Surprise, ranking system still fails.
> >
> > Yet it also added years of replayability and competitiveness to the game and both Reach/H4 have suffered for taking it out. <mark>It may have failed on some levels, but anyone of us who spent countless nights and hundreds of hours getting our 50s in H2/H3 will argue that Halo isn’t Halo without ranks.</mark>
> >
> > I can go on about why ranks are a necessity but there are a thousand other threads for that.
>
> I tip my virtal hat off to you and the others who did the grinding the right way to get your 50s in H2/H3.
>
> I have given Halo 3 a fair go (ranked Lone Wolves) lately, having started out on Halo Reach and, I must say that I find the Halo 3 ranking system, despite its historical faults, fine. I liked the fact that I was matched more often than not with people th same skill level as I; at other times, no more than plus/minus ten.

And thats exactly my point, despite all of the “faults” you listed (which are true I won’t disagree) we still put up with them for years and enjoyed the hell out of the experience of earning a 50. When I first got mine in '09 after many months of trying it was an incredibly satisfying feeling and I would be willing to put up with all of those “faults” any day to have that back.

12

> > Both halo and call of duty had made significant changes to their core gameplay each game.
> >
> > But the reason why people find them different is because the feel either game gives off.
> >
> > In my opinion how call of duty plays gets very stale very fast due to the way it plays.
> >
> > <mark>But halo got it’s “feel” right to me ever since the beginning. And i still continue to get that halo “feel” everytime i play a halo game.</mark>
> >
> > It doesn’t come down to how many changes or how little changes either side makes. It’s how it feels that matters.
> >
> > Halo in general likes to bring in ideas that could realistically change how things play.
> >
> > Call of duty in general likes to bring in ideas that enhance already in game play. Who’s to say which is right? That is down to your own opinion. But it is a fact that both series have made great changes over the years. It’s an opinion on which company got it right.
>
> I only go on what people on here say about COD as I’m not a COD MM player. But, I have played all the COD campaigns!
>
> I accept what your saying about changes.
>
> As for your mentioning the feel of Halo, I covered that previously by stating that the Halo campaigns have always been freaking awesome. Is that the feel of Halo you mention? As for Halo MM feel, it has been constantly changing, IMO.

I’m a long time player of both series. Though i started with halo and it’s still holds it’s place as the best FPS on console in my mind. When i mention the halo feel i mean everything about the game that includes both SP and MM. I imagine halo as a lady, and the new mechanics as a new coat. Halo 4 is the same classy lady i grew to love just in a new outfit. I have my personal quams with MP like everyone else. But where i stand is different then others. I would rather risk some gameplay for the sake of player choice then limit players to conform to a certain play style. In the end i believe we are all halo players and 343 should support all styles of play VIA playlists. It doesn’t have to be a “my play style is the right one” kind of world with halo.

13

I wont lie the Halo 2 ranking system was hard and was strict. Although I was just a 14-15 year old at the time. I was always stuck at a 27. The highest I ever reached was 28.

14

I prefer to have “cheating,boosting, MIC abuse” than this we have now.

One thing Halo 2 and 3 did well that the others can´t still accomplish is that the game was competitive and fun at the same time.

I like play COD, COD is fun to play with firends and alone. Halo 4 i can´t play with friends nor alone it´s just to boring to play.

Halo 2 to Halo 3 that was change. Halo 3 to now it was just destruction of the game. Halo 4 campaing wasn´t that good either, the promethean was to predictable. Halo CE and 2 had the best campaing yet.

Yes MM is in constant change but the only one i saw that work properly is Halo 2 and Halo 3 overall! Halo 2 had some glitch but no big deal. I say the best MM yet is still Halo 3, call it nostalgia or whatever you want but that is a fact.

15

The thing is most of the good ‘changes’ to the Halo series were simply to balance or improve a system as opposed to completely changing the the feel of the game. You mention many changes done by Bungie between Halo 3 and Reach but you should remember Halo Reach is seen by most as the worst of Bungie Halo games, with gimmicks such as AA’s being brought in and changing the whole feel of the game.

There is a huge differences between improving/ updating a game and making drastic changes just for the sake of it (Halo 4). Despite this I do think Halo is getting back on track with the recent updates.

16

OP,

The classic refrain that you have from those that do not like the game is that this is bad change.

The ones that like it will say that this is combat evolved.

I have long stopped talking about what the “community” wants because I think that this place is better when people talk about what THEY THEMSELVES like.

I like the game and the changes.

Regardless, Halo is 343i to change and the only way to move is forward.

17

> Bungie got it wrong on some fronts. 343i took on the Halo mantle and knew of the bad history of the failed ranking systems and tried something new.

Kinda conflicting statements

> That population became very much smaller long before Halo Reach came out.

Not really.

> The population that once existed on Halo 3 MM never did transfer over and be emulated on Halo Reach. That was essentially due to the bad history/problems with halo 3 MM.

Where exactly did you get that from?

> Both Halo Reach and,even more so Halo 4, have had to compete with many, many times more games than Halo 3 ever had to. The arguments about the Halo 3 population and it being used to somehow point out fault with Halo 4 is erroneous.

Reach really didn’t have any notable competition to speak of for a year or so. I can agree with that, to a degree anyways.

18

> Regardless, Halo is 343i to change and the only way to move is forward.

This is not moving forward.

19

> And Halo 4 missed the mark as well. In my personal experience, Halo 3 is the game that got it right. Others will disagree no doubt, but to me it had the right balance of gunplay, grenades, vehicle combat and “gimmicks” (Equipment). I see what Reach and Halo 4 were trying to do, modernize. Shooters these days tend incorporate loadout-style play that caters to individual playstyles. However, I think that goes against the four things I mentioned up top.
>
> Early on, gunplay was hurt when the DMR and Boltshot dominated. I’d also say thus hurt what Halo 4 was trying to do with loadouts, why pick the Carbine, Lightrifle or Battle Rifle when the DMR dominates? Since then the weapon tuning update patched things up, so lesson learned.
>
> Grenades go right in with vehicle combat in this area. When anybody can spawn with Plasma Grenades and the Plasma Pistol, vehicle’s are death traps. That hasn’t changed.
>
> As far as gimmicks are concerned, armor abilities are ones that do more harm than good. Sure, jetpacking is fun and Promethean Vision can make for some interesting confrontations, maps now have to be made with them in mind. Halo 3’s maps didn’t need to be built around Equipment, Equipment complimented the maps. Now maps have to be made larger enough to sprint around, I know Sprint isn’t an AA anymore.
>
> So in the end, while Halo has tried to modernize, I don’t think it was a successful venture. It turned off some old school fans, failed to impress those from other franchises with similar features and I think that is apparent.

I agree with this. As much as I’m having fun with Halo 4, if Halo wants to continue its own identity and pave its own path, it needs to become unique and separate from other games even if that means sticking to formulas from older Halo games.

Things like Loadouts, being rewarded for killing other players, etc are gameplay elements that worked in other games. However gamers are tired of seeing it everywhere outside of CoD. CoD keeps these elements because players want to see that in CoD but they don’t want to see it in other games when they need a break from CoD.

Homefront, Battlefield, Halo, Assassin’s Creed, Ghost Recon, Gears of War, Tomb Raider are just some of the franchises that look at CoD and borrow a lot of elements from it (assuming to be just as appealing to the mass audience).

This is tiring and it needs to stop. Games need to forge their own identity instead of copying the big guy to steal some of his money away.

20

Ok Wolfblade. Once I read this section that I’m about to paraphrase for you, maybe you and if nothing else, someone, will see why I stopped reading at this specific point in the post.

-"…because of cheating, boosting, mic abuse…"

Now, there’s a serious, serious problem with your so called “theory.” If you think this doesn’t go on, or hasn’t went on, for years, in the COD series of shooters, you’re deluding yourself, but I highly doubt you’re deluding anyone else. COD suffers from likely far worse mic abuse yet retains population. Mind explaining that? You might want to restart your thread over, and try again. No offense.