You know, I’ve noticed something over the past few years. Just wanted to throw this out there and see what comes back. I see so many people on various forums across the internet complaining about how they don’t want every game in a series to “feel the same.” And yet, the franchises that change very little between games, continue to be some of the most popular. For example, any time you say something bad about Halo 5, people jump on you and say “Do you seriously want every game to be just like Halo 2?” Well, obviously, my answer is no. However, the ROOTS of a franchise are what build it in the first place. Halo 5 did a good job in it’s multiplayer of getting back closer to the roots of Halo. Story-wise, not so much. It was too far out there, and the story’s gameplay elements seemed ripped from other games’ ways of telling stories. Now, take the latest Assassin’s Creed, Black Ops 3, Madden 16, and Fallout 4 into account. Why are all of those games ahead of Halo 5? Even on Xbox One? Here’s my theory. We don’t WANT games to change. Each one has it’s own unique experience. You change it too much, and it becomes something else. I’ve seen a few complaints online about how “Fallout 4 feels the same and Fallout 3”. Well, I believe that’s the point. Only new franchises such as Destiny have the right to change up the formula so wildly. This is why Halo is struggling, it’s not close enough to the roots in several ways. This is also why Fallout 4 has excelled. There are new features, ideas, and stories being told, but the art, look, feel, music of the game is relatively untouched. Even some of the same graphic issues and glitches still exist. Black Ops 3, as well, is “just another call of duty” and it’s doing very well. Nostalgia is extremely powerful. Rather than have a company run their game into the ground in the name of “innovation”, why not embrace the old and familiar experiences and then blend some new features in as well? This lets your game evolve over time, naturally, without it losing “that same feeling.” Or, perhaps, internet people, quit complaining so damn much.
If Halo MCC sells more than Halo 5 I think they SHOULD go back to basically Halo 3 and start again. Just my opinion
Isn’t that the point with Halo 5 in comparison to 4? They stripped out most of the stuff that fans didn’t like from Reach/4 and instead tried to add features and mechanics that built on the foundation.
How are Spartan Abilities any different to hijacking and dual wielding? In arena, how is the foundation any different to Halo 2-3? You start equally, then have to control the map and power weapons to help you get kills and score objectives.
> 2533274842918190;3:
> Isn’t that the point with Halo 5 in comparison to 4? They stripped out most of the stuff that fans didn’t like from Reach/4 and instead tried to add features and mechanics that built on the foundation.
>
> How are Spartan Abilities any different to hijacking and dual wielding? In arena, how is the foundation any different to Halo 2-3? You start equally, then have to control the map and power weapons to help you get kills and score objectives.
That’s basically what I’m saying. As far as multiplayer goes, Halo 5 did a good job of feeling like halo again. They added some new things as well that keep in line with the franchise and keep it fresh but overall…the game feels like Halo. Campaign wise, however, it felt nothing like a Halo campaign. Maybe by the time we get to Halo 6, 343 will have figured out how to make a great campaign AND multiplayer. All I’m saying is that I don’t understand the people screaming so much for change, when really, we all enjoy this game at its best when it’s closer to what we originally experienced, plus a few new treats.
Your completely right. Halo doesn’t need to change to be successful… The original Halo formula never had a chance to fail.
A gears of war designer admited that too much innovation is a bad thing. Here is his quote
“People say they want innovation, but what they often really want is the same, just with a fresh wrapper”
assassins creed is literally the same game over and over just in a different time period. I like games that evolve. But that’s just me.
That reminds something I saw somewhere and there is that part in the comment (or something like that) : “is what a sequel should be, the same with more stuff” .
That what are Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo: Reach.
(Halo 2 was big enough at the gametype possibilities, Halo 3 with Forge and even more gametypes, Reach with Invasion, a super Forge, loadouts and armor abilities that increase even more the possibilities… errr Halo 4 not that… arf… Dominion is fun at least)
I agree with the OP to an extent.
If a video game (or film, cartoon, comic, etc.) franchise changes too much, it runs the risk of alienating its core audience. That core audience naturally gets upset, but then they’re usually shouted down by the newcomers to the franchise. Then the creators often have to make difficult choices in deciding whose interests they should feed.
“Evolution”. “Innovate”. I’d love to see someone describe in-depth what it means for a game to “evolve”, and why it’s so important. All I’ve seen so far is people basically saying “Halo needs to become what I want it to become because reasons”. You can repeat the phrase “Halo needs to evolve” as many times as you want, but in itself that argument has no meat to it. As for being innovative, all Halo has really done recently is play follow the leader. Smart business or not, that’s not what I would personally consider innovation.
<mark>Do not necropost threads.</mark>
> 2533274803334965;6:
> assassins creed is literally the same game over and over just in a different time period. I like games that evolve. But that’s just me.
Well, each game really fills a niche. When I get tired of Assassin’s Creed I don’t buy the next one, I buy a different game altogether, because I more or less know what to expect. Then, later on, I go back and pick it up. If the game crosses over into other game’s territories as far as the experience it brings you, it’s really no longer unique. Halo 4 made this mistake when it added killstreaks, perma-sprint, and other features in the game that made it cross over into CoD territory. The game was not necessarily a bad game, but it was a bad Halo because it didn’t hold to form. Even Halo Reach, as much as people love to rant about it, held to form. And even the people that disagreed about whether or not it held to form got a classic playlist later on that played just the same as older Halo.
Essentially, Halo should try to distance itself from other shooters, not be held to other FPS standards and the common trends in gaming.
Halo 4’s praised story still faltered in gameplay, with the cheesy CoD-like button mashing sequence cut scenes every so often.
My point is, the FPS market is becoming crowded, and games that don’t distance themselves with their very own unique style and art (such as Wolfenstein) will quickly be left behind. This is why Medal of Honor is no longer a thing. Because it used to be too much like CoD and then it was turned into a Battlefield beta, and the poor game was never it’s own real experience. Even with it’s unique stories, the gameplay was simply too familiar.
Building off your comment, successful franchises are popular simply because they keep the same gameplay while slightly changing the formula. Take Madden 16 for example. The game is almost untouched but they added subtle changes such as new catching mechanics and defense strategy. The same can be said for Black Ops III, too. Same game, but the gameplay is amped up a bit with new movement controls. And what about Mario Kart?Huge franchise that makes millions, but the Big N always manages to turn the gears a bit in each installment. For example, Mario Kart 8 is reminiscent to it’s predecessors but the new gravity mechanic suits the series well.
That’s why such gigantic franchises are so successful. Take a look at the Legend of Zelda, Smash Bros., Pokemon, Call of Duty, Fallout, GTA…the list goes on. Each of these franchises have a massive fan appeal and make millions each year. Every single one of those I mentioned has managed to not make any huge changes to its gameplay but rather alter the mechanics a bit.
While I wouldn’t necessarily say that Halo 5 does this wrong, it’s very noticeable that this isn’t the same franchise as it was a decade ago. The ability to sprint, ground pound and charge are all new additions to the gameplay that make it different compared to its predecessors. The brand new Warzone mode looks and plays nothing like the BTB that was in the original three Halo games. Perhaps this is why Halo’s success has slightly dwindled.
> 2533274857642512;1:
> You know, I’ve noticed something over the past few years. Just wanted to throw this out there and see what comes back. I see so many people on various forums across the internet complaining about how they don’t want every game in a series to “feel the same.” And yet, the franchises that change very little between games, continue to be some of the most popular. For example, any time you say something bad about Halo 5, people jump on you and say “Do you seriously want every game to be just like Halo 2?” Well, obviously, my answer is no. However, the ROOTS of a franchise are what build it in the first place. Halo 5 did a good job in it’s multiplayer of getting back closer to the roots of Halo. Story-wise, not so much. It was too far out there, and the story’s gameplay elements seemed ripped from other games’ ways of telling stories. Now, take the latest Assassin’s Creed, Black Ops 3, Madden 16, and Fallout 4 into account. Why are all of those games ahead of Halo 5? Even on Xbox One? Here’s my theory. We don’t WANT games to change. Each one has it’s own unique experience. You change it too much, and it becomes something else. I’ve seen a few complaints online about how “Fallout 4 feels the same and Fallout 3”. Well, I believe that’s the point. Only new franchises such as Destiny have the right to change up the formula so wildly. This is why Halo is struggling, it’s not close enough to the roots in several ways. This is also why Fallout 4 has excelled. There are new features, ideas, and stories being told, but the art, look, feel, music of the game is relatively untouched. Even some of the same graphic issues and glitches still exist. Black Ops 3, as well, is “just another call of duty” and it’s doing very well. Nostalgia is extremely powerful. Rather than have a company run their game into the ground in the name of “innovation”, why not embrace the old and familiar experiences and then blend some new features in as well? This lets your game evolve over time, naturally, without it losing “that same feeling.” Or, perhaps, internet people, quit complaining so damn much.
This is heavenly… You could not have hit the hammer on the head more effectively. We need new ideas, and features, but to also stay strong with our roots and remember what this game has always been about.
You know the “halo roots” aren’t even close to h2, but the pre alpha version of HCE. Just pointing this out there.
the only real relationship h5 has with hce is:
- halo (in the title) - regenerating shields - unsc (name/brand) - pelicans in the cutsceneseverything else has been altered in some fashion or another.
> 2533274909139271;12:
> You know the “halo roots” aren’t even close to h2, but the pre alpha version of HCE. Just pointing this out there.
>
>
>
> the only real relationship h5 has with hce is:
>
> - halo (in the title)
> - regenerating shields
> - unsc (name/brand)
> - pelicans in the cutscenes
> everything else has been altered in some fashion or another.
>
The “roots” simply consist of the art and music styles, and the gameplay elements that have been most popular over the years. I would also say weapon balance is something that is important, although only Reach and 5 have had really balanced weapons. In every other game the BR (or the magnum in CE) was king.
> 2533274857642512;13:
> > 2533274909139271;12:
> > You know the “halo roots” aren’t even close to h2, but the pre alpha version of HCE. Just pointing this out there.
> >
> >
> >
> > the only real relationship h5 has with hce is:
> >
> > - halo (in the title)
> > - regenerating shields
> > - unsc (name/brand)
> > - pelicans in the cutscenes
> > everything else has been altered in some fashion or another.
> >
>
>
> The “roots” simply consist of the art and music styles, and the gameplay elements that have been most popular over the years. I would also say weapon balance is something that is important, although only Reach and 5 have had really balanced weapons. In every other game the BR (or the magnum in CE) was king.
Also, the roots of the game are in social, fun gaming intent. Bungie was very adamant about their game being the kind that “you could all get together and have a beer and play Halo together.” Only has Halo 5 failed in that goal. And Halo 4 failed to deliver the art and music styles of old, as well as making the multiplayer wayyyy too different. It still stands as the odd man out in Halo, as far as MP.
Game theory did a video on this, and pretty much the exact same thing is said. People say they want new junk, but then they reject it.
I actually agree with your overall claim of “sticking to your guns”, but highly disagree with that Fallout-4-example. FO4 only resembles its predecessors in terms of world design and overall style, but not in terms of gameplay. Skills are completely gone, choice options have been severely reduced (a necessity from the introduction of voice acting) and the last remnants of the initial turn-based system that were still left in VATS have now been completely removed.
I really enjoy H5 MP but could live with a shift “backwards” just as long as they dont bring back dual wielding.
Halo is as fine as this. The gameplay is how I always wanted Halo to be like. For Halo 6 they should keep the same gameplay, but of course maybe add new weapons, improve the unlock system, maybe a new spartan ability if its balanced, have more gametypes, expand warzone and introduce new gametypes as well and that’s all it needs to be a great sequel. Oh oops and a new writer is needed. Please bring the H4 writer back, he did fantastically with the characters.
> 2533274908264105;18:
> Please bring the H4 writer back, he did fantastically with the characters.
He just signed up with Bungie, like a week ago or something^^
Most of what you say makes sense, and I think I agree with it to a point. What I think people are missing is that Halo didn’t start to lose popularity (it’s still very popular in its own right) because of the changes it made. The changes were a result of its popularity starting to dwindle. You can then make a valid argument that the changes made to help make it the king of FPS were not the right changes. Those changes were meant to bring back players lost to CoD/Battlefield, and in the end it made the die hard fans upset.
I really enjoyed Halo 4, but I understand a lot of the complaints about it. Something you need to understand is the theme of it is completely different than the other games. So by default there are going to be some significant changes to the “roots” The one complaint I hear a lot deals with the music of the game. It’s too different from the old music. I have all the soundtracks to the Halo games (yes I’m that nerd), and Halo 4’s music is some of the best. Is it different? Yes, but the theme of Halo 4 is much different compared to the original three games.