I hope 343 realizes how big of a role Halo 4 will play in the series. Right now Halo as a franchise is being destroyed in every aspect of the gaming industry whether it be sales, population, popularity, innovation etc etc. If Halo 4 doesn’t do what Halo 2 did i.e. make people purchase Xbox Live and an Xbox just to play it, the franchise may sink.
I’m currently 18 and hated Halo and Xbox when it first came out. I laughed and thought nothing was better then my good old PS2. That was until one of my friends invited me over to play Halo. The only other FPS I had ever played before that was Goldeneye 007 for the N64, and I loved it. But after the first campaign level I was hooked.
343 NEEDS to see that if they don’t use REAL innovation within Halo 4, its going to sink the series, and the franchise. Halo: Reach did NOTHING for the series besides push fans and new players away. Halo’s original beauty was that anyone could pick it up and have fun. It wasn’t too complex, but it wasn’t basic either. There was a learning curve. Hopefully 343 works on actual game mechanics and not customization.
tl;dr Halo used to be incredibly fun, and innovative. 343 needs to ignite the spark that has been put out and release a game with innovation that is incredibly fun and hard to put down.
You’re absolutely right. Bungie really screwed up with Reach. For most long-time Halo fans, it’s at the point where if Halo 4 doesn’t impress, they’re out. 343i CANNOT destroy the Halo formula. People like Halo because it has Halo gameplay. Not because it’s a compilation of random tidbits from other games. Keep the formula Halos 1-3 followed, while adding new features that add on to the gameplay, rather than drastically changing it.
Not to mention that, but from a canonical standpoint, Halo 4 has to continue the legacy. The Covenant is done. The separatists have no reason to unite with humanity and the loyalists have been effectively defeated. The Flood has been supposedly destroyed and/or trapped. Really, if it wasn’t for Halo 3’s Legendary ending, the franchise would be over. As you said, this is make or break. 343i needs to get the job done right with H4 or else the franchise is finished.
I’m sure if they made a mistake, we will still continue to play halo…
> I’m sure if they made a mistake, we will still continue to play halo…
Small mistakes are obviously going to happen. But if Halo 4 as big of a colossal failure as Reach was, there is little to no hope for the franchise.
> I’m sure if they made a mistake, we will still continue to play halo…
Thats what people said about Reach. They do it a second time and I’m sure people will be done with the series.
Fool me once, shame on you;
fool me twice, shame on me
Halo 4 needs to get a lot of advertising, and realise the hype, like Halo 2 did. Reach was overhyped, that big disappointment was, imo, what pushed away a lot of people. Hopefully that’ll just be temporary and people will move over from Halo 3, Reach and many other games to Halo 4.
I know it’s fun to fear-monger, but you should relax. 343 obviously knows that Reach was its own thing, and they don’t intend to pull sandbox elements from it.
Bungie had its own reasons for what happened. By now they’re neck deep in a new franchise, and Halo was no longer their concern even as they made their last one. The game was a year early, and by ‘swan-song’ they meant ‘get it over with’.
But as for 343, they clearly intend to revive the game whilst simultaneously innovating new features that playtesters can’t live without. Remember reading about all the new additions in Halo 3? Things like equipment, new vehicles, and flashy armor never made people feel like it wasn’t Halo.
Besides, the director’s cut H4 trailer is sexed. I have no doubt that Halo 4 will be the best in the series.
I don’t agree with this thread.
I know everyone whines over Reach because “It’s not Halo 4”, “theres no Master Chief”, “Armor abilities ruined it”.
All of these are opinionated but poor statements. Bungie was not interested in starting another trilogy. ODST and Reach were games that Bungie can make and be passionate about, Halo 4 was not.
Reach was great, every enemy was refined to the point that their behavior and appearance is the best we’ve seen so far (From a released game). I know everyone says “I like ‘classic’ Halo MP better” but the truth is that they can’t keep putting out “classic” gameplay every year or the series would become stail. I do believe Bungie should have put the option for them to easily manipulate things like armor lock, melee and bloom though.
And back to the Halo 4 OT:
“Make it or break it” applies to just about every game depending on how you look at it. A bad game could break your series and a good game can make it. If you mean that Halo is in a bad situation (like the way the COD series is) then I must say no it is not. 343i is obviously gonna put their best into the game and make it what they feel is good and I have not seen a Halo game I did not enjoy.
>
Halo 4 definitely needs to go back to the roots of what made Halo Halo. I buy Halo to play Halo. I don’t buy Halo to play Team Fortress 2. If I wanted to play Team Fortress, I’d buy TF2. If you want a change of gameplay, nobody is stopping you from playing a different style of game. Just leave our Halo alone.
It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.
> I don’t agree with this thread.
> I know everyone whines over Reach because “It’s not Halo 4”, “theres no Master Chief”, “Armor abilities ruined it”.
>
> All of these are opinionated but poor statements. Bungie was not interested in starting another trilogy. ODST and Reach were games that Bungie can make and be passionate about, Halo 4 was not.
> Reach was great, every enemy was refined to the point that their behavior and appearance is the best we’ve seen so far (From a released game). I know everyone says “I like ‘classic’ Halo MP better” but the truth is that they can’t keep putting out “classic” gameplay every year or the series would become stail. I do believe Bungie should have put the option for them to easily manipulate things like armor lock, melee and bloom though.
>
>
> And back to the Halo 4 OT:
> “Make it or break it” applies to just about every game depending on how you look at it. A bad game could break your series and a good game can make it. If you mean that Halo is in a bad situation (like the way the COD series is) then I must say no it is not. 343i is obviously gonna put their best into the game and make it what they feel is good and I have not seen a Halo game I did not enjoy.
It’s easy for you because how you said you enjoyed Reach, but some people didn’t and it will be the last chance for 343i to show with Halo 4 if these people should stay at Halo and enjoy it or just move on sth. different.
No OP, you are wrong in many ways.
Sales:
While Halo may be inferior in sales to games like Call of Duty it is in no way selling badly. Besides the large quantity of sales when first released, Frank O’Connor stated at Halo Fest that Reach was still selling well.
Halo ight never be able to compete in sails with a COD game not because it is not good enough but because COD appeals to a wider audience (people who suck at it, aka casual gamers).
Population:
Halo Reach still has a good population and reaches 100,000 on the weekend many times. Yes Halo could have a higher population but once again COD absorbs many gamers to to it’s kids level difficulty.
Popularity:
I hate having to mention an inferior series like COD so many times but the truth is that COD is what takes away sales and gamers from other games that might deserve it more. I’ve seen many COD players switch over to Reach play 3 games and never play it again once they realize you can’t lay down and eat as many marshmellows as you can in COD. Though I prefer not having those players in the lobby anyway. Right now it seems as if Halo 4 is getting pretty popular and I’m sure will get more players on release that Reach.
Innovation:
As far as innovation goes Halo is in no bad situation. Reach introduced armor abilities which took the series a good leap ahead, some people don’t like AAs but they are none-the-less innovative. Armor abilities added a creative way to take down an unsuspecting foe or just to embarass them. Armor customization, FF 2.0 and Forge expanded and added huge innovations.
I understand your concern and I agree that if Halo 4 is bad it will give a blow to the series but that is always the case. Any Halo game (except maybe Halo Wars because it’s a strategy) could have given a blow to the series should it have failed. I don’t advise anyone to be worried because I’m sure that 343i is innovating in every aspect of the game.
> No OP, you are wrong in many ways.
>
> Sales:
> While Halo may be inferior in sales to games like Call of Duty it is in no way selling badly. Besides the large quantity of sales when first released, Frank O’Connor stated at Halo Fest that Reach was still selling well.
> Halo ight never be able to compete in sails with a COD game not because it is not good enough but because COD appeals to a wider audience (people who suck at it, aka casual gamers).
>
> Population:
> Halo Reach still has a good population and reaches 100,000 on the weekend many times. Yes Halo could have a higher population but once again COD absorbs many gamers to to it’s kids level difficulty.
>
> Popularity:
> I hate having to mention an inferior series like COD so many times but the truth is that COD is what takes away sales and gamers from other games that might deserve it more. I’ve seen many COD players switch over to Reach play 3 games and never play it again once they realize you can’t lay down and eat as many marshmellows as you can in COD. Though I prefer not having those players in the lobby anyway. Right now it seems as if Halo 4 is getting pretty popular and I’m sure will get more players on release that Reach.
>
> Innovation:
> As far as innovation goes Halo is in no bad situation. Reach introduced armor abilities which took the series a good leap ahead, some people don’t like AAs but they are none-the-less innovative. Armor abilities added a creative way to take down an unsuspecting foe or just to embarass them. Armor customization, FF 2.0 and Forge expanded and added huge innovations.
>
> I understand your concern and I agree that if Halo 4 is bad it will give a blow to the series but that is always the case. Any Halo game (except maybe Halo Wars because it’s a strategy) could have given a blow to the series should it have failed. I don’t advise anyone to be worried because I’m sure that 343i is innovating in every aspect of the game.
CoD isn’t the dark evil threat for Halo. If a game sucks and people don’t enjoy it, it will have a low population.
> >
>
> Halo 4 definitely needs to go back to the roots of what made Halo Halo. I buy Halo to play Halo. I don’t buy Halo to play Team Fortress 2. If I wanted to play Team Fortress, I’d buy TF2. If you want a change of gameplay, nobody is stopping you from playing a different style of game. Just leave our Halo alone.
>
> It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.
I agree that Halo should stay like Halo but innovations are necessary to prevent a series from growing dull. AAs were added giving a well needed change to the gameplay. A change that at it’s core was still Halo.
Obviously I don’t want to see iron sights or bullet drop in Halo…ever…but both from a developer standpoint and a fan standpoint I must agree that the multiplayer must advance in some way or it will become the next COD.
> I agree that Halo should stay like Halo but innovations are necessary to prevent a series from growing dull. AAs were added giving a well needed change to the gameplay. A change that at it’s core was still Halo.
> Obviously I don’t want to see iron sights or bullet drop in Halo…ever…but both from a developer standpoint and a fan standpoint I must agree that the multiplayer must advance in some way or it will become the next COD.
No. Reach had far too many changes for it to be even considered Halo gameplay in my eyes. And this isn’t a rare opinion. It’s shared by lots of long-term fans of the series. We don’t need gimmicks. Look how well that turned out for Reach.
> CoD isn’t the dark evil threat for Halo. If a game sucks and people don’t enjoy it, it will have a low population.
No it is not but COD definitely numbs the minds of gamers into thinking that if a player doesn’t drop from a slight spray of bullets that its a terrible game.
Don’t forget that there will never be a Halo game that pleases everyone. Because someone will always dislike it no matter what you do. Halo Reach has 100,000 players after being out for a year and is still one of the most played games on XBL. It’s doing pretty well for a game that has been out that long and the fact that players are switching over to new releases this fall is typical and understandable and should not lead anyone to believe that Reach is doing poorly.
> > CoD isn’t the dark evil threat for Halo. If a game sucks and people don’t enjoy it, it will have a low population.
>
> No it is not but COD definitely numbs the minds of gamers into thinking that if a player doesn’t drop from a slight spray of bullets that its a terrible game.
>
> Don’t forget that there will never be a Halo game that pleases everyone. Because someone will always dislike it no matter what you do. Halo Reach has 100,000 players after being out for a year and is still one of the most played games on XBL. It’s doing pretty well for a game that has been out that long and the fact that players are switching over to new releases this fall is typical and understandable and should not lead anyone to believe that Reach is doing poorly.
Did I tell you somewhere that Reach has a low population? And in my opinion is Reach the same thing to Halo, how you described CoD, a low skill and spray shooter.
Basically this is how I see it: 343 needs to make their mark. They are new to the franchise, and Halo CE Anniversary is there way to get some attention. Now all that’s meant to accomplish is to say “Hey, we exist! Look what we did! Try Halo 4!”
Halo 4, however is 343’s chance to PROVE that they are going to make Halo an amazing franchise again. If they mess up Halo 4, Halo 5 and 6 are going to be extremely unpopular.
> Basically this is how I see it: 343 needs to make their mark. They are new to the franchise, and Halo CE Anniversary is there way to get some attention. Now all that’s meant to accomplish is to say “Hey, we exist! Look what we did! Try Halo 4!”
>
> Halo 4, however is 343’s chance to PROVE that they are going to make Halo an amazing franchise again. If they mess up Halo 4, Halo 5 and 6 are going to be extremely unpopular.
Essentially, this.
> No. Reach had far too many changes for it to be even considered Halo gameplay in my eyes. And this isn’t a rare opinion. It’s shared by lots of long-term fans of the series. We don’t need gimmicks. Look how well that turned out for Reach.
It’s shared by many people but many other’s also like some changes. I think it’s still perfectly Halo gameplay.
AAs: Were fine, should have been tunable from the beginning but they gave Halo a fresher feel.
Assassinations: Doesn’t really impact gameplay, they are optional if you want to be fancy:
Bloom: While it was necessary for Halo to implement some sort of way to prevent the spraying of precision weapons there were better methods that bloom, decreased accuracy like on a Plasma Rifle would have been more appropriate.
May I ask how you wanted Reach to play out?
You don’t want AAs and want easy BRs and Carbines?
Halo 3 MP was great but if you compare it directly with Reach you can see the many problems it had. People could just fire their precision rifles to their hearts desire, bleed through melee usually meant someone couls spray a little and then knock you out. Snipers had nothing to prevent getting easy 2 shots, there was no easy way of stopping or evading vehicles.
Halo Reach fixed many problems. Halo 4 will not throw away AAs either so if you want “classic” MP you’re gonna have to play the first trilogy of games.
> > > CoD isn’t the dark evil threat for Halo. If a game sucks and people don’t enjoy it, it will have a low population.
> >
> > No it is not but COD definitely numbs the minds of gamers into thinking that if a player doesn’t drop from a slight spray of bullets that its a terrible game.
> >
> > Don’t forget that there will never be a Halo game that pleases everyone. Because someone will always dislike it no matter what you do. Halo Reach has 100,000 players after being out for a year and is still one of the most played games on XBL. It’s doing pretty well for a game that has been out that long and the fact that players are switching over to new releases this fall is typical and understandable and should not lead anyone to believe that Reach is doing poorly.
>
> Did I tell you somewhere that Reach has a low population? And in my opinion is Reach the same thing to Halo, how you described CoD, a low skill and spray shooter.
You stated:
“If a game sucks and people don’t enjoy it, it will have a low population” there were only 2 games you mentioned, Halo and COD. Considering COD’s pop is pretty high it’s a correct assumption that you were referring to Halo.
Halo being a low skill, spray shooter like COD?
Not even close, yes you can spray in halo and it’s obviously the only thing to do on full auto weapons at close range but their are great differences.
COD you can lay down, go ADS and look at a doorway and then spray as a 4 man team walks through the door. Halo you can crouch and look at a doorway but because you have no ADS advantage it takes the person with the better accuracy to get the kill (ie skill).