> I don’t know why you guys even bother when your posts are all going to just get deleted in 20 minutes anyway…
There it is … the voice of reason. J0HNL3I I know VV4ff135 provoked the argument but it’s best to not waste more of your time replying he’s just having a laugh, the more you reply the more he is going to lol at you … sorry dude 
> > Not once did Frank O’Connor say anything close to “Halo 4 will be nothing like Halo: Reach”.
> >
> > In fact, he implied even more change if anything.
>
> This.
>
> I know he has said in the past that they will keep it more true to roots/“A real Halo game” but this interview in particular strongly implied the opposite of that.
I fully came in here expecting to hear “H4 will be nothing like Reach” but after listening to the interview he did not say that. What I heard was “We are going to be using some of the same core gameplay creation Bungie created in HCE” which means we will be getting a Halo game with the core gameplay mechanics/fundamentals of the Halo we know, but then he says they are going to be doing something “Fresh and new” with H4 which could mean new features or gameplay mechanics are going to be added with H4 which is to be expected, but whether they are really game changers like AA’s or bloom were with Reach still remains to be seen. I think with all the talented developers they have assembled for H4 there has to be some good ideas that most Halo fans would like and that would fit with gameplay, but they have to keep it Halo and do their best to appease the ENTIRE fanbase of Halo which Reach did not do but alienated core players and oldschool fans. Oh, and they need to make our weapons shoot straight(NO bloom or random spread on precision weapons) and get rid of AA’s and go back to the Sandbox gameplay(Symmetrical starts everything is pick-up) Halo is known for.
> > > Not once did Frank O’Connor say anything close to “Halo 4 will be nothing like Halo: Reach”.
> > >
> > > In fact, he implied even more change if anything.
> >
> > This.
> >
> > I know he has said in the past that they will keep it more true to roots/“A real Halo game” but this interview in particular strongly implied the opposite of that.
>
> I fully came in here expecting to hear “H4 will be nothing like Reach” but after listening to the interview he did not say that. What I heard was “We are going to be using some of the same core gameplsy creation Bungie created in HCE” which means we will be getting a Halo game with the core gameplay mechanics/fundamentals of the Halo we know, but then he says they are going to be doing something “Fresh and new” with H4 which could mean new features or gameplay mechanics are going to be added with H4 which is to be expected, but whether they are really game changers like AA’s or bloom were with Reach still remains to be seen. I think with all the talented developers they have assembled for H4 there has to be some good ideas that most Halo fans would like and that would fit with gameplsy, but they have to keep it Halo and do their best to appease the ENTIRE fanbase of Halo which Reach did not do but alienated core players and oldschool fans. Oh, and they need to make our weapons shoot straight(NO bloom or random spread on precision weapons) and get rid of AA’s and go back to the Sandbox gameplay(Symmetrical starts everything is pick-up) Halo is known for.
You sir, just won a green mushroom for an extra life.
> Why is it automatically assumed that Reach is bad?
Because it is -_-
And it’s not “automatic”. People’ve played it and they’ve come to that conclusion themselves.
Oh, and listening @ 7:20 made my heart plunge. They said they’re taking some of the “gameplay creations”(?) that were seeded in CE but looking at the XBL activity charts they need to do something fresh and new. Basically, they’re saying they want the CoD crowd. This is going to end well…
Halo 4 will apparently have new “abilities”, new “ideas” and new “techniques”. Don’t you guys get it? Bungie kept -Yoinking!- ing Halo up with new “abilities”, new “ideas” and new “techniques”. Now we’re up to Reach, where -Yoink- really plummeted, and that’s all thanks to trying to give Halo some new ‘freshness’. Reach is below Fifa for crying out loud!
If you guys want to hit gold with a different kind of gameplay build another franchise. I just want to play Halo again >_>
No AAs, no bloom, and no equipment. No gimmicks.
So because Reach featured changes and those exact changes were bad, we all assume that ANY form of change is negative? Amazing logic.
> So because Reach featured changes and those exact changes were bad, we all assume that ANY form of change is negative? Amazing logic.
You’re not using any logic. I want to play a Halo game online again, and Halo means guns, grenades and powerups. Nothing more, nothing else. I don’t want change because I liked Halo how it was, derp. It has nothing to do with Reach or anything else.
It’s like how you have a chocolate cake, but someone then pours vanilla icing all over it. Vanilla itself isn’t bad, but it just ruined the cake for those that just liked chocolate.
You can give me better maps, a better campaign and more features (ala, Theater, Forge, etc), but I want to play Halo. Not a different game with Halo on the title. Just sayin’.
> So because Reach featured changes and those exact changes were bad, we all assume that ANY form of change is negative? Amazing logic.
Don’t fix it if it aint broke.So basically there was no need to risk adding in new gameplay mechanics with Reach but bungie took that risk and failed so it wouldn’t exactly be smart for 343 to risk changing halo’s gameplay when it’s not neccesary
> > So because Reach featured changes and those exact changes were bad, we all assume that ANY form of change is negative? Amazing logic.
>
> You’re not using any logic. I want to play a Halo game online again, and Halo means guns, grenades and powerups. Nothing more, nothing else. I don’t want change because I liked Halo how it was, derp. It has nothing to do with Reach or anything else.
>
> You can give us better maps, a better campaign and more features (ala, Theater, Forge, etc), but I want to play Halo. Not a different game with Halo on the title. Just sayin’.
It seems we have vastly differing opinions here. I don’t wanna play Halo: CE with better graphics and newer weapons, I’d like new mechanics to be implemented but more effectively than AAs were. Halo isn’t gonna retrogress because that’s what it looks like you’re asking for here, you’re simply not gonna get what you want. Just because you liked Halo how it was does not mean that it cannot be further improved.
FYI, Halo has always added new mechanics each game. It’s safe to say that Halo 4 will follow suit.
Halo 4 will be nothing like Halo: Reach?
Well we are entering a new era in the History of the Halo Universe so of course its not going to be like Halo: Reach.
Halo: Reach saw the Defiant Battle and Fall of the UNSC Military Powerhouse Planet, Reach. We fought to our deaths on that Planet. With Halo 4, we are traversing new and unexplored territories. You should be…
Wait… Are we only talking about Halo 4 in a gameplay side of things?
> Oh, and listening @ 7:20 made my heart plunge. They said they’re taking some of the “gameplay creations”(?) that were seeded in CE but looking at the XBL activity charts they need to do something fresh and new. Basically, they’re saying they want the CoD crowd. This is going to end well…
>
> Halo 4 will apparently have new “abilities”, new “ideas” and new “techniques”. Don’t you guys get it? Bungie kept Yoink! ing Halo up with new “abilities”, new “ideas” and new “techniques”. Now we’re up to Reach, where Yoink! really plummeted, and that’s all thanks to trying to give Halo some new ‘freshness’. Reach is below Fifa for crying out loud!
You realise how vague Frankie was being? “Abilities”, “ideas” and “techniques” could mean almost anything at this point. I’d reserve judgements until we get some solid information if I were you.
The amount of sheer pigheadedness and lack of an open mind in this thread astounds me.
Especially this travesty of a post:
> > So because Reach featured changes and those exact changes were bad, we all assume that ANY form of change is negative? Amazing logic.
>
> You’re not using any logic. I want to play a Halo game online again, and Halo means guns, grenades and powerups. Nothing more, nothing else. I don’t want change because I liked Halo how it was, derp. It has nothing to do with Reach or anything else.
We are all aware that Reach’s ‘features’ were not exactly ideal. They did nothing but stagnate the immersive, intense, and highly competitive gameplay that still manages to be fresh and quite different from the generic modern shooter. But take in account: this was Bungie’s last Halo game, do you really expect their swan song to little more than a carbon copy of the trilogy beforehand? It would feel dated, and more importantly, lazy, with little changes to the actual franchise besides a better campaign, pace-wise.
Because that is what the hivemind of this forum, and you, are emphasizing on. Don’t add anything new; keep it the exact same, as proven by your bolded quotes. This is a start of a new trilogy, there is no way in hell 343 is going to prove themselves as a capable developer if the most they do is rehash the original trilogy. The Reclaimer series is about a fresh, innovative, start, not a game literally slapped with the label of ‘lack of creativity’. That’s COD.
I would invite you to open your mind.
> FYI, Halo has always added new mechanics each game. It’s safe to say that Halo 4 will follow suit.
Yea, that’s the problem. Bungie kept following that ideal and now we’re up to Reach. Hurray!
CE > H2 > H3 > R
^ That’s thanks to Bungie persisting on adding ‘new’ gameplay gimmicks.
> We are all aware that Reach’s ‘features’ were not exactly ideal.
Again, this has nothing to do with Reach. I’m not asking for a carbon copy either, you’re being ignorant and you know it.
> If you guys want to hit gold with a different kind of gameplay build another franchise. I just want to play Halo again >_>
> No AAs, no bloom, and no equipment. No gimmicks.
True Dat and I think this is how EVERYONE in the veteran Halo community feels especially after Reach. But, the sad reality is CoD’s main appeal to the average gamer IS gimmicks(Perks,killstreaks,equipment,weapon unlocks,prestige, ADS,ect) which are terrible for fundamentally sound and balanced gameplay, but casuals dont care about that hence why CoD is so popular and hence why CoD keeps adding more of them. Other game companies have unfortunately caught onto these trends, thinking adding those gimmicks into their game will sell more copies but that hasnt been true with Crysis which was almost broken by killstreaks and CoD crap, BF on a smaller scale definitely didnt need them, and you see why your seeing more gimmicks in gameplay because they are selling points to compete with CoD. I dont want to think Reach was influenced by that, but Reach had gimmicky AA’s as well and the veteran Halo fanbase disliked them and the casuals that might of liked them left with MW3 anyways. Halo has always been about solid gameplay and quality over quantity and adding any kind of gimmicky gameplay mechanic into the formula would ruin it. It would be like adding ADS or killstreaks to CS it just wouldnt work its not what the games about.
> > Again, this has nothing to do with Reach. I’m not asking for a carbon copy either, you’re being ignorant and you know it.
>
>
>
> > > Nothing more, nothing else. I don’t want change because I liked Halo how it was, derp.
> >
> > That’s what you quite literally asked for, don’t back out now.
> >
> > Otherwise, clarify yourself, because nothing in your post ever implies a want for innovation, in fact, it rejects change in any form, on the contrary.
> > > Again, this has nothing to do with Reach. I’m not asking for a carbon copy either, you’re being ignorant and you know it.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Nothing more, nothing else. I don’t want change because I liked Halo how it was, derp.
> > >
> > > That’s what you quite literally asked for, don’t back out now.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, clarify yourself, because nothing in your post ever implies a want for innovation, in fact, it rejects change in any form, on the contrary.
> >
> > Lawl.
> > Innovation =/= good.
> >
> > Also, read my post. Not a portion of it.
> > > > Again, this has nothing to do with Reach. I’m not asking for a carbon copy either, you’re being ignorant and you know it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Nothing more, nothing else. I don’t want change because I liked Halo how it was, derp.
> > > >
> > > > That’s what you quite literally asked for, don’t back out now.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, clarify yourself, because nothing in your post ever implies a want for innovation, in fact, it rejects change in any form, on the contrary.
> > >
> > > Lawl.
> > > Innovation =/= good.
> > >
> > > Also, read my post. Not a portion of it.
> >
> > Never implied otherwise, but thanks for the strawman.
> >
> > Halo 4 should always remain a Halo game at heart in terms of gameplay, but as this is a start of a new trilogy, meaning of one the primary goals of 343 should be to entice both new and old players into the franchise, the gameplay will most definitely have to be spiced up.
> >
> > Of course, the changes have to be good. We don’t need reckless gimmicks slapped down on Reach just to say it’s different from the other Halos, but we need a breath of fresh air to make Halo interesting again.
You mustn’t know how to read…
> Of course, the changes have to be good. We don’t need reckless gimmicks slapped down on Reach just to say it’s different from the other Halos, but we need a breath of fresh air to make Halo interesting again.
Herp, derp. That’s what a ton of you say, but then Bungie gave us a “breath of fresh air”: Reach. If you’re not ‘slapping gimmicks’ on Halo’s gameplay to make it “fresh” like Reach did then you’re changing the core gameplay itself.
If you don’t find Halo’s MP interesting anymore perhaps you should move onto another franchise instead of turning Halo into a different game to satisfy your short attention span.
> You mustn’t know how to read…
>
>
>
> > Of course, the changes have to be good. We don’t need reckless gimmicks slapped down on Reach just to say it’s different from the other Halos, but we need a breath of fresh air to make Halo interesting again.
>
> Herp, derp. That’s what a ton of you say, but then Bungie gave us a “breath of fresh air”: Reach. If you’re not ‘slapping gimmicks’ on Halo’s gameplay to make it “fresh” like Reach did then you’re changing the core gameplay itself.
>
> If you don’t find Halo’s MP interesting anymore perhaps you should move onto another franchise instead of turning Halo into a different game to satisfy your short attention span.
Try not misunderstanding me.
I’m saying that because it’s a new trilogy, because 343 has to prove themselves as a developer, and because Halo must be prevented from becoming stale, changes ARE necessary. We can’t have the same game released every two years, can we? Of course, these changes have to be positive.
Oh, I find Halo’s multiplayer engaging and fun. Yet have it rehashed every entry in the franchise? The interest in that starts to deteriorate after three solid games using that same formula, I hope you understand. And given my previous reasons, it is every bit important for 343 to step up to the plate for innovation. We need something new, but something good as well.
You, on the other hand, are outright rejecting change and begging for the exact same gameplay. No, that doesn’t help Halo anymore than Reach’s changes do.
Some of the most confusing comments.
So, we want Halo to be the most popular played XBL game, yet we don’t want the CoD players.
By that logic, we definitely need change to bring in players who don’t play what is already available, because there isn’t a large population that likes what’s available as crack at the moment.
> > You mustn’t know how to read…
> >
> >
> >
> > > Of course, the changes have to be good. We don’t need reckless gimmicks slapped down on Reach just to say it’s different from the other Halos, but we need a breath of fresh air to make Halo interesting again.
> >
> > Herp, derp. That’s what a ton of you say, but then Bungie gave us a “breath of fresh air”: Reach. If you’re not ‘slapping gimmicks’ on Halo’s gameplay to make it “fresh” like Reach did then you’re changing the core gameplay itself.
> >
> > If you don’t find Halo’s MP interesting anymore perhaps you should move onto another franchise instead of turning Halo into a different game to satisfy your short attention span.
>
> The interest in that starts to deteriorate after three solid games using that same formula, I hope you understand.
sigh
You’re getting bored of Halo so you want it changed to suit your needs. That’s all I hear from you. Move onto another franchise for your MP needs then.
If you knew how to read people’s comments without injecting your own bias into them you’d understand what I was saying. It’s not that I want nothing to change, it’s that I don’t want the gameplay to change. It should stay guns, grenades and powerups.
If we look at the most popular games of past you’ll see a trend; they didn’t change their gameplay for a long time, but when they did their popularity dropped. Quake stayed relatively the same throughout the series, but Q4 goofed up. Popularity dropped. Unreal Tournament stayed relatively the same throughout the series, but UT3 goofed up and popularity dropped. Halo stayed relatively the same throughout the series, but Reach goofed up and popularity dropped. CoD’s stayed relatively the same throughout the series and they’ve yet to goof up. Time will tell… Same with Counter Strike. It’s yet to goof up with a sequel that’s dramatically different and it’s still wildly popular.
I play Halo to play Halo, and I’d like to continue playing Halo in the next sequel, not a game that feels similar to Halo.