Halo 5 desperately needs to be different

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Halo 5 will not be the fifth Halo game (excluding spin-offs), but the seventh counting ODST and Reach. Some people criticize aspects of a couple or each of them, and that’s fine. But in a time where people write their lists of what should Halo 5 be like, it’s always about being more like this or that Halo game and take off certain elements they added. I know there’s a lot of new Halo players here, people who started playing Halo with Halo 3, Reach or 4. Heck, someone who began to play the series with Halo 3 probably feels like an old fan with the newcomers who started with 4 and will start with MCC. But the question I have here, is am I the only one who’s starting to be tired of playing Halo? I mean, I hate AAs in multiplayer or several aspects of Halo 4’s multiplayer like a lot of people and I severely dislike some aspects of the storytelling in Halo 4 but that’s beside the point. Even when enjoying Reach’s or 4’s campaign I can’t help but feel they don’t do enough. It’s like everything was done before but better. Or even if they do manage to get things more tight, it just feels old.

Halo has always been running on the same engine, and it shows. In fact, either it shows the engine is getting old and restrictive, or the people making the games lack a lot of imagination and play it wayyy to safe. I know Bungie tried to put water vehicles in but always failed, even with Reach’s apparently new engine (or beefed-up old engine). It’s always the same corridor-like areas followed by medium-sized sandboxy terrains appropriate for heavy vehicle use, etc. Halo 3 promised huge battlefields with several battles at the same time, but it never happened. Although Halo 3’s sandboxes remain the series’ biggest and more interesting ones. Scarab battles was a great addition to the franchise but that’s pretty much the only notable thing that was introduced to spice up things. In Reach there were scarabs only in the last mission and they were more than disappointing. Although the gameplay in Reach was very tight and they added a couple of nice things here and there, it was actually a step back. Halo 4 didn’t do much to up the ante. The thing about destroying the phantom was neat, but just a one off intense thing that never happens again. Halo used to wow me with great gameplay and several intense battles but that stopped happening. It became too much like a routine thing. It shows Halo brings in a lot of money and some people will want to milk as much money out of the series while playing it safe.

I think Halo needs to focus more on the sandbox aspect of the games. Change the engine if they need to, they need to take risks. Otherwise it doesn’t matter if they’re releasing it on Xbox One or Two, the core won’t change even if the coat of paint does. Huge battles with plenty of vehicles and AIs, air battles, sea battles at the same time as on ground ones. Heck, I’d even make enemies a bit more easy to kill so battles in big open areas would be more feasible. That’s just ideas of mine, but honestly, we need a bit of REAL change, not just a couple of details here and there or elements taken from other popular games. Because I’d rather play Halo 1-2-3 than play a remake of them with fancy new stories and graphics. Heck, the original games are getting the whole complete remastered set (or almost) for xbox one, there’s no reason to do what the franchise’s been doing for what, 13 years!!

2

It wasnt broke (h1-h3) then why fix it (reach and 4)? Innovations need to complement the franchises roots not drastically alter it. Reach and h4 killed this community. Time for 343 to go back to their roots and lick their wounds. 11.11.14

3

And how are Reach and 4 that much different from 1-3 exect for the multiplayer? And anyway, we already have Halo 1, 2 and 3 to go back to, why re-do the whole thing again? I agree the innovation in the multiplayer wasn’t for the best at all, but I agree that they need to move on, even more that we’ll be able to play the Halo 2 mp with the MCC.

4

I also feel that Halo is in need of some significant changes. Nothing that changes the core, but something revolutionary. Things we didn’t even know we wanted.

5

you brought some very good points and your points are exactly why I’m excited that they’re building a brand new engine from the ground up for halo on Xbox one.

hopefully now we’ll have massive expansive battles, more space combat, and larger player numbers.

I agree whole heartedly with you on single player. I was disappointed in that reach level I think tip of the spear where you start off with a massive army but its pretty much rekt before the cutscene is over.

I think it’d be cool to enact some battles from the lore, I’m think unyielding hierophant, contact harvest, the fall of reach. Go big or go home and this is where halo 5 has the opportunity to hit it out of the park.

6

I think the goal of the new spartan abilities is to mix things up a little while staying to the design goals of halo multiplayer.

Only halo 2 really allowed you to do new things. Everything else was just “new items/weapons/vehicles” and “loadouts”.

Reach and 4 were somewhat new with their space fighter missions, but it didn’t effect the main gameplay, and especially not multiplayer.

7

Odst and reach technically were spin-offs.

8

> 2533274793379465;1:
> Halo 5 will not be the fifth Halo game (excluding spin-offs), but the seventh counting ODST and Reach. Some people criticize aspects of a couple or each of them, and that’s fine. But in a time where people write their lists of what should Halo 5 be like, it’s always about being more like this or that Halo game and take off certain elements they added. I know there’s a lot of new Halo players here, people who started playing Halo with Halo 3, Reach or 4. Heck, someone who began to play the series with Halo 3 probably feels like an old fan with the newcomers who started with 4 and will start with MCC. But the question I have here, is am I the only one who’s starting to be tired of playing Halo? I mean, I hate AAs in multiplayer or several aspects of Halo 4’s multiplayer like a lot of people and I severely dislike some aspects of the storytelling in Halo 4 but that’s beside the point. Even when enjoying Reach’s or 4’s campaign I can’t help but feel they don’t do enough. It’s like everything was done before but better. Or even if they do manage to get things more tight, it just feels old.

I’d say it’s the developer’s lack of time and imagination. If you look at Halo: Reach’s earliest stuff it looks amazing, gameplay wise, but as soon as you jump into the game there’s a significant lack of variation. They’re all linear shooters but with the content that is in Reach they could have done so much more. ODST on the other hand is an excellent game.

> 2533274793379465;1:
> Halo has always been running on the same engine, and it shows. In fact, either it shows the engine is getting old and restrictive, or the people making the games lack a lot of imagination and play it wayyy to safe. I know Bungie tried to put water vehicles in but always failed, even with Reach’s apparently new engine (or beefed-up old engine). It’s always the same corridor-like areas followed by medium-sized sandboxy terrains appropriate for heavy vehicle use, etc. Halo 3 promised huge battlefields with several battles at the same time, but it never happened. Although Halo 3’s sandboxes remain the series’ biggest and more interesting ones. Scarab battles was a great addition to the franchise but that’s pretty much the only notable thing that was introduced to spice up things. In Reach there were scarabs only in the last mission and they were more than disappointing. Although the gameplay in Reach was very tight and they added a couple of nice things here and there, it was actually a step back. Halo 4 didn’t do much to up the ante. The thing about destroying the phantom was neat, but just a one off intense thing that never happens again. Halo used to wow me with great gameplay and several intense battles but that stopped happening. It became too much like a routine thing. It shows Halo brings in a lot of money and some people will want to milk as much money out of the series while playing it safe.

Halo: Reach was a heavily updated Halo 3 engine, mostly everything was gutted.

As for boats, where would those actually fit in? I wouldn’t say they failed at putting boats in, but what is the actual use of a boat in Halo? At the moment I can’t really think of any shooter that stands out with boats. Mainly because shooters are infantry based and infantry rarely does good in water.

Also, from an entirley other point of view, the UNSC has space ships and a lot of aerial troop transports. A battleship isn’t useful when it’s limited to a planet while a space ship can bombard from orbit and isn’t restricted to the planet. Then we have drop ships as transports which can reach high altitudes.

As for near identical corridors and so on, that’s not the engine’s fault, that’s the content the developer’s make.

> 2533274793379465;1:
> I think Halo needs to focus more on the sandbox aspect of the games. Change the engine if they need to, they need to take risks. Otherwise it doesn’t matter if they’re releasing it on Xbox One or Two, the core won’t change even if the coat of paint does. Huge battles with plenty of vehicles and AIs, air battles, sea battles at the same time as on ground ones. Heck, I’d even make enemies a bit more easy to kill so battles in big open areas would be more feasible. That’s just ideas of mine, but honestly, we need a bit of REAL change, not just a couple of details here and there or elements taken from other popular games. Because I’d rather play Halo 1-2-3 than play a remake of them with fancy new stories and graphics. Heck, the original games are getting the whole complete remastered set (or almost) for xbox one, there’s no reason to do what the franchise’s been doing for what, 13 years!!

But if the core isn’t the problem, why change it for the sake of change? If you come up with something that adds to the core, then great, but do not change just to change.

Additional content is all good, and different content for that matter to have some replay value. Reach did that well on some parts, I was disappointed with the ten minute scorpion run but was impressed with the 40 minute Falcon mission. Gameplay is what the developers make.

9

> 2533274793379465;1:
> Halo 5 will not be the fifth Halo game (excluding spin-offs), but the seventh counting ODST and Reach. Some people criticize aspects of a couple or each of them, and that’s fine. But in a time where people write their lists of what should Halo 5 be like, it’s always about being more like this or that Halo game and take off certain elements they added. I know there’s a lot of new Halo players here, people who started playing Halo with Halo 3, Reach or 4. Heck, someone who began to play the series with Halo 3 probably feels like an old fan with the newcomers who started with 4 and will start with MCC. But the question I have here, is am I the only one who’s starting to be tired of playing Halo? I mean, I hate AAs in multiplayer or several aspects of Halo 4’s multiplayer like a lot of people and I severely dislike some aspects of the storytelling in Halo 4 but that’s beside the point. Even when enjoying Reach’s or 4’s campaign I can’t help but feel they don’t do enough. It’s like everything was done before but better. Or even if they do manage to get things more tight, it just feels old.
>
> Halo has always been running on the same engine, and it shows. In fact, either it shows the engine is getting old and restrictive, or the people making the games lack a lot of imagination and play it wayyy to safe. I know Bungie tried to put water vehicles in but always failed, even with Reach’s apparently new engine (or beefed-up old engine). It’s always the same corridor-like areas followed by medium-sized sandboxy terrains appropriate for heavy vehicle use, etc. Halo 3 promised huge battlefields with several battles at the same time, but it never happened. Although Halo 3’s sandboxes remain the series’ biggest and more interesting ones. Scarab battles was a great addition to the franchise but that’s pretty much the only notable thing that was introduced to spice up things. In Reach there were scarabs only in the last mission and they were more than disappointing. Although the gameplay in Reach was very tight and they added a couple of nice things here and there, it was actually a step back. Halo 4 didn’t do much to up the ante. The thing about destroying the phantom was neat, but just a one off intense thing that never happens again. Halo used to wow me with great gameplay and several intense battles but that stopped happening. It became too much like a routine thing. It shows Halo brings in a lot of money and some people will want to milk as much money out of the series while playing it safe.
>
> I think Halo needs to focus more on the sandbox aspect of the games. Change the engine if they need to, they need to take risks. Otherwise it doesn’t matter if they’re releasing it on Xbox One or Two, the core won’t change even if the coat of paint does. Huge battles with plenty of vehicles and AIs, air battles, sea battles at the same time as on ground ones. Heck, I’d even make enemies a bit more easy to kill so battles in big open areas would be more feasible. That’s just ideas of mine, but honestly, we need a bit of REAL change, not just a couple of details here and there or elements taken from other popular games. Because I’d rather play Halo 1-2-3 than play a remake of them with fancy new stories and graphics. Heck, the original games are getting the whole complete remastered set (or almost) for xbox one, there’s no reason to do what the franchise’s been doing for what, 13 years!!

No it doesnt the whole reason why H4 died was due to the fact that it was so unlike Halo that no body liked it thus everyone left

10

Whatever, I loved Reach. The only drastic introduction was AA’s via loadouts (not AAs and loadouts, see?). So it didn’t work, but I can’t fault them for trying something new. Not everything is going to be a hit. I’d rather a Halo title keep it small and slightly miss (Reach) rather than try everything and miss by a country mile (4).

We talk about what needs to go away (sprint) and what should return, what should become standard (thruster pack) and what is true to the “core.” But each Halo title has introduced something new to the franchise, for better or worse (and each title has some of each.) Guardians is going to be no different, and that’s a good thing. I hope 343 gives us something very different in Guardians.

It’s Halo’s hallmark to keep pushing boundaries, not tidy up existing ones.

11

> 2533274793379465;1:
> Huge battles with plenty of vehicles and AIs, air battles, sea battles at the same time as on ground ones.

How is Halo going to be “different” by doing the exact same things that every other AAA title is trying to do right now?

12

> I’d say it’s the developer’s lack of time and imagination. If you look at Halo: Reach’s earliest stuff it looks amazing, gameplay wise, but as soon as you jump into the game there’s a significant lack of variation. They’re all linear shooters but with the content that is in Reach they could have done so much more. ODST on the other hand is an excellent game.

The engine is really important in the sense that it’s what restricts what you’re doing, you’re imagination and creativity. What is important is how the engine restricts. I agree that more development time or imagination would have helped, but I think there’s certain things that would have never been possible with that engine. For example, you surely can’t do a Skyrim-like game with the Halo engine, that would be impossible. It’s an extreme example, but I wouldn’t be surprised that engine restricted Halo from doing nothing else than corridor/sandbox/corridor/sandbox type of gameplay, not that it’s exactly a bad thing, but it’s a well known fact that constantly building on top of such a huge program that problems arise, Windows cough Windows. You can’t build on top of a foundation which has a couple of weaknesses forever, these weaknesses will be more problematic with each new iteration of the engine and some things will never be possible. I honestly think that it shows with Halo. Heck, Halo CE had some pretty big battlefields here and there, Halo 2 pushed the consoles capabilities admirably, but while Halo 3 had some of the franchise biggest sandboxes, it was a poor considering it was on a brand new console. The console wasn’t nearly as much as the limiting factor than the engine. Reach and Halo 4 prove this. Unless the studios got REAL lazy. The graphics got better but the level design/gameplay actually regressed at some point, except for the singular fancy new thing (space mission in Reach and Phantom take-down in 4). These were awesome, but a one-off thing in the entire game. Halo 4 should have showed all the extent of the 360’s capabilities like Halo 2 did, but except for the graphics it was less impressive than Halo 3!

Reach earliest stuff looked amazing because that’s before they realized they couldn’t actually pull it off because of the engine’s limitations. Well, that’s what I think but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to be true.

> Halo: Reach was a heavily updated Halo 3 engine, mostly everything was gutted.
>
> As for boats, where would those actually fit in? I wouldn’t say they failed at putting boats in, but what is the actual use of a boat in Halo? At the moment I can’t really think of any shooter that stands out with boats. Mainly because shooters are infantry based and infantry rarely does good in water.
>
> Also, from an entirley other point of view, the UNSC has space ships and a lot of aerial troop transports. A battleship isn’t useful when it’s limited to a planet while a space ship can bombard from orbit and isn’t restricted to the planet. Then we have drop ships as transports which can reach high altitudes.
>
> As for near identical corridors and so on, that’s not the engine’s fault, that’s the content the developer’s make.

Yes, but the base of the engine is the very same. It’s gonna have the very same problems and pose the very same limitations. Unless they remake the engine from the ground-up, it WILL be basically just an updated engine, and it shows.

For the boats, I don’t know. That’s them to come up with this, and it seems like they knew what to do with them because they tried to pull it off. They couldn’t put them into the game because of technical limitations, they never managed to get it right, and I wouldn’t doubt their programmers’ talent. I can definitely see some big battlefields with rivers and lakes with boats in them.

My problem wasn’t with near identical corridors, if it fits with the level design as in Assault for the Control Room for example. But as I said the engine always put limitations in the game. I’m not saying the engine unables them for doing anything else than corridor/sandbox/corridor, but I guess there could exist such an engine. Of course the creators of the game are those who have the final say in a game, but they have to work with something that poses its limitations and they have to get around those and try to get the most out of the engine.

> But if the core isn’t the problem, why change it for the sake of change? If you come up with something that adds to the core, then great, but do not change just to change.
>
> Additional content is all good, and different content for that matter to have some replay value. Reach did that well on some parts, I was disappointed with the ten minute scorpion run but was impressed with the 40 minute Falcon mission. Gameplay is what the developers make.

Because they’ve been using the very same core for 13 years on 6 games? Aren’t you tired of playing the same game? And no, yes Reach and 4 introduced ‘‘new’’ things, but it barely makes any difference. It still plays the very same way. Except now you can sprint or use a jetpack or whatever, but 95% of the game plays the same. It gets OLD. Halo is a one-trick pony right now. It’s ALWAYS more of the same now. Playing Halo 4 for the first time was almost boring, I was always like ‘‘I’ve already seen this 10 times before’’. Come on, the escape the invaded ship was already done in Halo 1 and Halo 2, and they handled it way better. Ever since Halo 1, and maybe Halo 2, Halo has been about remaking itself. We’re gonna do a ‘‘this mission in Halo 1’’ type of mission we already did in Halo 2. Then this other mission will be like this ‘‘halo 1 or halo 2’’ type of mission, etc… There’s barely any new ideas, and every new ideas is like every other game franchise does, a little thing that doesn’t really change anything until you come across it that one time or two in the game. Even then, the gameplay’s getting real old.

And the Falcon thing was really just a one-off thing, and while it was fun, it wasn’t anything really special.

13

> 2533274805712917;11:
> > 2533274793379465;1:
> > Huge battles with plenty of vehicles and AIs, air battles, sea battles at the same time as on ground ones.
>
>
>
>
> How is Halo going to be “different” by doing the exact same things that every other AAA title is trying to do right now?

I must say that the only shooters I ever play nowadays are the Halo ones. Otherwise it’s just old shooters like the original Ghost Recon. Having said that, I doubt these other ‘‘AAA’’ titles have the very same gameplay, so even if the scope is widened to something like those games the actual gameplay will make sure they don’t play the same. Anyway, we can always say that everything has been done already so Halo must still be a one-trick pony doing the same thing for another 13 years, how exciting!

> Whatever, I loved Reach. The only drastic introduction was AA’s via loadouts (not AAs and loadouts, see?). So it didn’t work, but I can’t fault them for trying something new. Not everything is going to be a hit. I’d rather a Halo title keep it small and slightly miss (Reach) rather than try everything and miss by a country mile (4).
>
> We talk about what needs to go away (sprint) and what should return, what should become standard (thruster pack) and what is true to the “core.” But each Halo title has introduced something new to the franchise, for better or worse (and each title has some of each.) Guardians is going to be no different, and that’s a good thing. I hope 343 gives us something very different in Guardians.
>
> It’s Halo’s hallmark to keep pushing boundaries, not tidy up existing ones.

That’s the problem: introduction. Putting in new things isn’t a solution, because it will still play the same. I don’t know if you’re talking about multiplayer, but in the campaign regardless of all those new things, 95% of the games play the same. I didn’t like AAs all that much (especially in MP) or how the story evolved in Halo 4, but gameplay-wise, it’s the very same thing.

Halo pushing boundaries? You gotta be kidding me, it’s gotta be one of the video game franchise playing it most safe in the world. Adding AA’s is not pushing boudaries at all. It’s just putting in elements from other games in the same core that has always existed. Heck, it’s not just the core that is the same, it’s almost everything.

> Odst and reach technically were spin-offs.

My point was that there are 6 Halo games that play the same. Plus, ODST is considered like an ‘‘expansion’’. The whole name is Halo 3: ODST.

14

Game changes: doesn’t feel like Halo anymore.

Game stays the same: it’s becoming like CoD.

Error 404: solution not found!

15

I get what you’re trying to say, and I too want Halo 5 to go to bold new places (especially in the Campaign), but I’m definitely nowhere near as tired of Halo as you seem to be. As long as there’s a great story and fun gameplay, I’ll be there.

16

> 2533274973373704;14:
> Game changes: doesn’t feel like Halo anymore.
>
> Game stays the same: it’s becoming like CoD.
>
> Error 404: solution not found!

Speaking only in terms of campaign, how did Halo ever changed? Adding new bits of things in isn’t ‘‘changing’’.

The multiplayer is another thing, and while I really prefer the classic Halo gameplay, it will all be available in the MCC package once again. Who needs to play Halo 2.5 when the classic is in there? When I want to play some sweet Unreal Tournament, I just return to the old one.

17

> 2533274846978810;15:
> I get what you’re trying to say, and I too want Halo 5 to go to bold new places (especially in the Campaign), but I’m definitely nowhere near as tired of Halo as you seem to be. As long as there’s a great story and fun gameplay, I’ll be there.

I don’t know, maybe it’s just because there’s something about Reach and 4’s campaign I have a problem with. Maybe the level design felt particularly tedious because of how it seems everything is being done in a kind of automatic way. You know, when you’re used to do something it’s harder to have the same impact as before. I need a sweet as possible environment as Halo 1-2-3 managed to do, some very nice pieces of level design and a story to hook me. I guess that even if it’s again the same thing and these things are met I’ll have fun. I think my main problems with Halo 4 and Reach is that Halo 4 was really boring even if it had nice bits here and there, and that some Reach missions felt too much like demo bits put together, in a way that you’re having fun and then they bring you someplace else time and time again. But maybe it’s just that after 12 years of playing Halo it does really get old. I’m more inclined to believe it’s the latter.

18

> 2533274793379465;17:
> > 2533274846978810;15:
> > I get what you’re trying to say, and I too want Halo 5 to go to bold new places (especially in the Campaign), but I’m definitely nowhere near as tired of Halo as you seem to be. As long as there’s a great story and fun gameplay, I’ll be there.
>
>
> I don’t know, maybe it’s just because there’s something about Reach and 4’s campaign I have a problem with. Maybe the level design felt particularly tedious because of how it seems everything is being done in a kind of automatic way. You know, when you’re used to do something it’s harder to have the same impact as before. I need a sweet as possible environment as Halo 1-2-3 managed to do, some very nice pieces of level design and a story to hook me. I guess that even if it’s again the same thing and these things are met I’ll have fun. I think my main problems with Halo 4 and Reach is that Halo 4 was really boring even if it had nice bits here and there, and that some Reach missions felt too much like demo bits put together, in a way that you’re having fun and then they bring you someplace else time and time again. But maybe it’s just that after 12 years of playing Halo it does really get old. I’m more inclined to believe it’s the latter.

I definitely understand any criticism of Reach’s campaign (it was fun, but the story was aweful- aside from a couple of emotional death scenes). I also understand your ciriticism of Halo 4 being too scripted. It definitely felt like you were boxed in and running a straight path throughout. I also think there could have been much more enemy variety in 4 (only 3 Promethean types, and minus a couple of Covenant types? come on…).

I am also 90% sure that with the Xbox One and with this being their second game, 343i will improve on all these points.

19

> 2533274793379465;3:
> And how are Reach and 4 that much different from 1-3 exect for the multiplayer? And anyway, we already have Halo 1, 2 and 3 to go back to, why re-do the whole thing again? I agree the innovation in the multiplayer wasn’t for the best at all, but I agree that they need to move on, even more that we’ll be able to play the Halo 2 mp with the MCC.

As long as it complements the roots of the game. Meaning arena shooter. Halo was more popular in its basic form rather than the innovated versions. Reach sucked. H4 was implemented poorly.

20

I stopped reading when you said Halo has always run on the same engine.