Ok so why was Halo 2 people’s favorite Halo game… One word innovation. Halo 2 was so popular because of it such as things like xbox live, way more weapons, way more vehicles, boarding, duel wielding, swap weapons with marines, marines that could drive ect. In my eyes Halo slowly declined in Halo 3 (even though numbers increased) and then drastically decreased in Halo Reach. To me this is lack of innovation and because of this Halo fell behind other shooters and now can’t keep up. If 343 wants Halo 4 to keep on going and be a number one shooter they have too bring in a lot of new things that gets people addicted like Halo 2 did.
The innovation needs to be in the right places though, if you “innovate” or change certain core aspects of the game then really you might as well make a completely different game… that is not named halo.
No, H2 was popular because they didn’t completely blow it by making it too different from HCE. They almost did, but they retained enough.
Halo 4 needs to be different because people want something new, original and exciting - you know, those attributes that made Combat Evolved so great. Otherwise Halo is dead, simple as that.
Ya your right but halo needs to add something like equipment or AAs that will work I think they should just improve on Halo 3s equipment. But if Halo stays to core it will just be the same game over and over again.
> Ya your right but halo needs to add something like equipment or AAs that will work I think they should just improve on Halo 3s equipment. But if Halo stays to core it will just be the same game over and over again.
Not true. If you introduce different weapons or introduce the same weapons and add depth to them the game will not be the same and in turn will still be innovative. A good example of sticking to the golden triangle while still innovating would be the pro pipe or grenade launcher. It is hard to use but when you used right it is deadly. Make grenades harder to use add skill and layers of depth into the golden triangle and we might have an extremely good game.
Adding halo 3 equipment or AA’s would just be another gimmick that detracts from what halo has been about.
> Halo 4 needs to be different because people want something new, original and exciting - you know, those attributes that made Combat Evolved so great. Otherwise Halo is dead, simple as that.
Being different worked out great for Reach
> > Halo 4 needs to be different because people want something new, original and exciting - you know, those attributes that made Combat Evolved so great. Otherwise Halo is dead, simple as that.
>
> Being different worked out great for Reach
sarcasm I hope??
> > Halo 4 needs to be different because people want something new, original and exciting - you know, those attributes that made Combat Evolved so great. Otherwise Halo is dead, simple as that.
>
> Being different worked out great for Reach
I’m 99% sure what you meant by that, and I’d like nothing better than to demolish your fallacy-ridden logic, but I hate to assume things about people and I don’t want you to be able to weasel your way out by saying that wasn’t what you meant, so: care to clarify what exactly you meant by your statement, and what relevance it has to Halo 4?
Halo 4 needs to be the Halo 2 to Halo 3 (not to Halo Reach).
> > > Halo 4 needs to be different because people want something new, original and exciting - you know, those attributes that made Combat Evolved so great. Otherwise Halo is dead, simple as that.
> >
> > Being different worked out great for Reach
>
> I’m 99% sure what you meant by that, and I’d like nothing better than to demolish your fallacy-ridden logic, but I hate to assume things about people and I don’t want you to be able to weasel your way out by saying that wasn’t what you meant, so: care to clarify what exactly you meant by your statement, and what relevance it has to Halo 4?
Well in the meantime you could talk to me about it. I feel personally reach tried to be a different game by straying from core mechanics that make halo, halo. If you want a different game than play a game that has a different title that is how I view it. Also I think I summarize my point on innovation above in a previous post.
I would like to see your view on the subject however.
edit: What I mean by title is, if it has halo in the title it should play like halo to the strictest sense. Things that should be changed should be improvements on previous games and include innovations that improve the core mechanics that have already been put in place. The core mechanics however must remain intact.
I don’t mind innovation, just as long as it doesn’t affect the core mechanics too greatly.
> > > > Halo 4 needs to be different because people want something new, original and exciting - you know, those attributes that made Combat Evolved so great. Otherwise Halo is dead, simple as that.
> > >
> > > Being different worked out great for Reach
> >
> > I’m 99% sure what you meant by that, and I’d like nothing better than to demolish your fallacy-ridden logic, but I hate to assume things about people and I don’t want you to be able to weasel your way out by saying that wasn’t what you meant, so: care to clarify what exactly you meant by your statement, and what relevance it has to Halo 4?
>
> Well in the meantime you could talk to me about it. I feel personally reach tried to be a different game by straying from core mechanics that make halo, halo. If you want a different game than play a game that has a different title that is how I view it. Also I think I summarize my point on innovation above in a previous post.
>
> I would like to see your view on the subject however.
>
> edit: What I mean by title is, if it has halo in the title it should play like halo to the strictest sense. Things that should be changed should be improvements on previous games and include innovations that improve the core mechanics that have already been put in place. The core mechanics however must remain intact.
My point being, just because innovation didn’t work once, doesn’t mean all innovation is definitely bad. That’s classic overextrapolation. Obviously the core gameplay - the golden triangle - needs to stay, but a game is more than core mechanics. The amount of people who don’t want any sort of armour ability/bloom purely because they didn’t like them in Reach depresses me, nearly as much as people saying the campaign should be “like Halo 2’s” or “the same as CE’s”. Innovation may kill Halo, it may advance it, it may propel it back to the top of the industry, it might finally put games on par with books and films. But surely taking the risk and trying would be far better than just going backwards and dusting off ideas that made a good game last decade.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create duplicate posts.
>
People do not want AA’s and bloom because they disrupt and change core aspects of halo. Bloom for instance slows down the game and weakens the gun part of the golden triangle. This makes melees and grenades more powerful and the end result is no longer a triagle but rather just two lines. AA’s destroy another key aspect of halo: map control and weapon control. Halo is special in the fact that everyone before halo reach started out with the exact same weapon, movement speed etc. To outdo your opponent a player was forced to have superior skill and better map awareness. By having those two key qualities that player was then able to pick up weapons on the map to further ensure his success. Some might even argue for sprint but the fact of the matter is it destroys the golden triangle. When someone sprints they cannot shoot, throw grenades, or melee until they have stopped sprinting. This slows down the game and also simply put destroys map control.
Innovation is needed, but the innovation must be a product of improving the mechanics that have already been laid out for halo. Otherwise you create a completely different game like reach that no halo fan is willing to accept.
> > > > > Halo 4 needs to be different because people want something new, original and exciting - you know, those attributes that made Combat Evolved so great. Otherwise Halo is dead, simple as that.
> > > >
> > > > Being different worked out great for Reach
> > >
> > > I’m 99% sure what you meant by that, and I’d like nothing better than to demolish your fallacy-ridden logic, but I hate to assume things about people and I don’t want you to be able to weasel your way out by saying that wasn’t what you meant, so: care to clarify what exactly you meant by your statement, and what relevance it has to Halo 4?
> >
> > Well in the meantime you could talk to me about it. I feel personally reach tried to be a different game by straying from core mechanics that make halo, halo. If you want a different game than play a game that has a different title that is how I view it. Also I think I summarize my point on innovation above in a previous post.
> >
> > I would like to see your view on the subject however.
> >
> > edit: What I mean by title is, if it has halo in the title it should play like halo to the strictest sense. Things that should be changed should be improvements on previous games and include innovations that improve the core mechanics that have already been put in place. The core mechanics however must remain intact.
>
> My point being, just because innovation didn’t work once, doesn’t mean all innovation is definitely bad. That’s classic overextrapolation. Obviously the core gameplay - the golden triangle - needs to stay, but a game is more than core mechanics. The amount of people who don’t want any sort of armour ability/bloom purely because they didn’t like them in Reach depresses me, nearly as much as people saying the campaign should be “like Halo 2’s” or “the same as CE’s”. Innovation may kill Halo, it may advance it, it may propel it back to the top of the industry, it might finally put games on par with books and films. But surely taking the risk and trying would be far better than just going backwards and dusting off ideas that made a good game last decade.
Yea but keeping core mechanics obviously has a better success…
Innovation-0 (halo reach)
Same Core -3 (halo 1,2,3)
> > > > > > Halo 4 needs to be different because people want something new, original and exciting - you know, those attributes that made Combat Evolved so great. Otherwise Halo is dead, simple as that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Being different worked out great for Reach
> > > >
> > > > I’m 99% sure what you meant by that, and I’d like nothing better than to demolish your fallacy-ridden logic, but I hate to assume things about people and I don’t want you to be able to weasel your way out by saying that wasn’t what you meant, so: care to clarify what exactly you meant by your statement, and what relevance it has to Halo 4?
> > >
> > > Well in the meantime you could talk to me about it. I feel personally reach tried to be a different game by straying from core mechanics that make halo, halo. If you want a different game than play a game that has a different title that is how I view it. Also I think I summarize my point on innovation above in a previous post.
> > >
> > > I would like to see your view on the subject however.
> > >
> > > edit: What I mean by title is, if it has halo in the title it should play like halo to the strictest sense. Things that should be changed should be improvements on previous games and include innovations that improve the core mechanics that have already been put in place. The core mechanics however must remain intact.
> >
> > My point being, just because innovation didn’t work once, doesn’t mean all innovation is definitely bad. That’s classic overextrapolation. Obviously the core gameplay - the golden triangle - needs to stay, but a game is more than core mechanics. The amount of people who don’t want any sort of armour ability/bloom purely because they didn’t like them in Reach depresses me, nearly as much as people saying the campaign should be “like Halo 2’s” or “the same as CE’s”. Innovation may kill Halo, it may advance it, it may propel it back to the top of the industry, it might finally put games on par with books and films. But surely taking the risk and trying would be far better than just going backwards and dusting off ideas that made a good game last decade.
>
> People do not want AA’s and bloom because they disrupt and change core aspects of halo. Bloom for instance slows down the game and weakens the gun part of the golden triangle. This makes melees and grenades more powerful and the end result is no longer a triagle but rather just two lines. AA’s destroy another key aspect of halo: map control and weapon control. Halo is special in the fact that everyone before halo reach started out with the exact same weapon, movement speed etc. To outdo your opponent a player was forced to have superior skill and better map awareness. By having those two key qualities that player was then able to pick up weapons on the map to further ensure his success. Some might even argue for sprint but the fact of the matter is it destroys the golden triangle. When someone sprints they cannot shoot, throw grenades, or melee until they have stopped sprinting. This slows down the game and also simply put destroys map control.
>
> Innovation is needed, but the innovation must be a product of improving the mechanics that have already been laid out for halo. Otherwise you create a completely different game like reach that no halo fan is willing to accept.
-
Reach is a popular game, no matter how many hate-on-the-newest-Halo hipsters feel the need to spam their narrow-minded opinions across the forums. One thing I’ve noticed is just how beneath me so many of the “hurr durr Reach sucks” arguers are. They spam logical fallacies like lyrical Zerg rushers and often either fail to grasp what I’m saying or fall back on repeatedly stating the same, already-explained point. You can’t just come out with crap like “reach… (a game that) no halo fan is willing to accept” because the very existence of the argument proves you wrong.
-
Nothing wrong with Loadouts so long as they are all balanced with each other. Sprint and Evade are fine. You do all start out equal, at the spawn screen, what you do from there is a matter your choices and your skill. The only problem with Reach is that the weapon sandbox was gapingly incomplete and some AAs (Armour Lock, I’m looking at you) were too easy to be very effective with.
-
There is nothing wrong with bloom being used as it should be, i.e. for long-range aiming with a precision weapon or mid/close range with an automatic weapon. If you like, I can go into the statistics of why bloom works in these situations, but hopefully you’ll automatically understand it yourself. The problem with bloom is when it gets put into precision weapons that are being used at mid/close range. In this situation randomness plays an unacceptably large role in the battle.
-
Everybody has to have the same weapon and movement? What about maps which had hooks somewhere other than in the direct middle? These are as easy to pick up at the start of the game as AAs are to pick off the spawn screen, but I don’t hear anybody crying about snipers on The Pit or vehicles on Hemorrhage. You can’t have it both ways. In reality, of course, this isn’t a true argument at all, it’s a superficially plausible notion riding off the back of genuine flaws with Reach’s Loadout system.
Keep Halo’s core intact and make changes that are beneficial, not changes that are simply for the sake of change.
> Halo 4 needs to be the Halo 2 to Halo 3 (not to Halo Reach).
> > Halo 4 needs to be Halo 4.
Fix’d.