Here is a list of new ideas introduced into Halo through Halo 5 off the top of my head:
4 person squad based campaign - Non-combat missions - Artemis tracking system - The Req system, where all unlockable content is based off a RNG system. - Warzone- 12 v 12 gamemode contains PvP, PvE, and chaotic, unpredictable situations all in one package. - Monthly free new content update system - A complex Forge mode - Weapon and vehicle varients - Individual XP/RP boosts only available to the player - Enhanced movement mechanics - ADS style zoom added to all weaponsOf the 11 things listed here, it seems that only 3-4 are highly praised all around the Halo community. Though I believe it is not a completely bad thing to have new ideas for a game, the question is this:
Did 343 implement too many new ideas at once?
Secondly, how should 343 approach implementing new ideas for Halo they might have? Finally, were they wrong to try out new things?
343 needs to take Halo back to its roots. There was nothing wrong with the formula that the original trilogy had. And if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.
Halo 4 completely followed the trends and lost any uniqueness Halo had by implementing the Call of Duty-style loadouts (granted, this started with Reach, but still). They also added things similar to kill streaks as well. It didn’t bode well.
I’ll admit, with Halo 5 there was an improvement. They did away with loadouts (thank God) and instead went back to even starts with power weapons on the map. Good start. I think they did a pretty good job of blending that classic style with some new ideas (enhanced mobility). And, not going to lie, I don’t mind the enhanced mobility. I still enjoy the multiplayer. But, if I were to choose – I think Halo not only survives, but thrives if it goes back to its roots completely. It should do away with enhanced mobility and bring back Halo 3’s formula.
They also didn’t do the greatest job with the new art style. Elites look (and act) like Brutes. And Master Chief’s armor is very bulky and not the nicest thing to look at. With Halo Wars 2, they improved upon this. Bringing back some of the old art style fused with some newer stuff. So, it’s a step in the right direction.
Overall, I hope that 343 listens to the community. Like you said, not many of those additions are ones that people like. It seems that they do listen, though. Frankie talked about how it was a mistake to have a campaign that was too Locke-centric and people want more Chief. Along with that, they seem to have heard the community’s complaints on the art style because of their recent improvements with Halo Wars 2. The hardest part is having 343 go back to the trilogy’s formula with multiplayer and eliminating enhanced mobility. That’s something that I think they’re too stuck on and think the game won’t do well without.
Reach had a team based campaign and started the “advanced” movement really. Also not all weapons “aim down sights”. They have have some sort of zoom animation.
> 2533274816788253;3:
> Reach had a team based campaign and started the “advanced” movement really. Also not all weapons “aim down sights”. They have have some sort of zoom animation.
Yes but you couldn’t command your squad in reach and their was no reviving system. Whatever you want to call it, the zoom gives weapons better accuracy which is not halo like…
> 2533274870124097;4:
> > 2533274816788253;3:
> > Reach had a team based campaign and started the “advanced” movement really. Also not all weapons “aim down sights”. They have have some sort of zoom animation.
>
> Yes but you couldn’t command your squad in reach and their was no reviving system. Whatever you want to call it, the zoom gives weapons better accuracy which is not halo like…
It was still a squad based campaign. While I didn’t like revive it sorta fit since H5 takes place where UNSC aren’t allowed or were not at so you can’t have random dead Marines or med pack pick ups laying around that wouldn’t make sense. Also having accurate weapons is very Halo like.
> 2533274816788253;5:
> > 2533274870124097;4:
> > > 2533274816788253;3:
> > > Reach had a team based campaign and started the “advanced” movement really. Also not all weapons “aim down sights”. They have have some sort of zoom animation.
> >
> > Yes but you couldn’t command your squad in reach and their was no reviving system. Whatever you want to call it, the zoom gives weapons better accuracy which is not halo like…
>
> It was still a squad based campaign. While I didn’t like revive it sorta fit since H5 takes place where UNSC aren’t allowed or were not at so you can’t have random dead Marines or med pack pick ups laying around that wouldn’t make sense. Also having accurate weapons is very Halo like.
Completely agree, and its effects in the design of the end-product are very apparent…
I will say though that I don’t really think H5’s advanced movement is a problem… Spartan Charge needs to be looked at and reimplemented IMO, but classic Halo support would also be a welcomed feature in future Halo games as well.
> 2533274816788253;3:
> Reach had a team based campaign and started the “advanced” movement really. Also not all weapons “aim down sights”. They have have some sort of zoom animation.
It’s considered ADS because it gives an advantage to the weapon.
> 2533274919101675;9:
> > 2533274816788253;3:
> > Reach had a team based campaign and started the “advanced” movement really. Also not all weapons “aim down sights”. They have have some sort of zoom animation.
>
> It’s considered ADS because it gives an advantage to the weapon.
I wouldn’t say that considering ADS literally means Aim Down Sights. Clearly not all of the smart link animations has you looking down the sights.
> 2535429593088083;11:
> “Nothing ventured, nothing gained”.
>
> It never hurts to take new risks for the better.
Tell us, what has Halo gained by 343 taking a bunch of risks by implementing at ton of new ideas into Halo 5? So far, most of 343’s risks have backfired.
> 2535429593088083;11:
> “Nothing ventured, nothing gained”.
>
> It never hurts to take new risks for the better.
Risks can only be taken and/or assessed. They can’t be taken “for the better” because their inherent nature is a win/lose scenario. You can’t logically say that it never hurts to take new risks, because if the lose side of the scenario is what results, it definitely hurts.
I think the problem was they were under developed ideas.
Like for the req system if some thing makes some thing obsolete and not needed it should really exist. A bunch of weapons that have there place and all have a reason to exist is what really makes the game good and fun to play. People think they want quantity but really they need balance.
> 2533274978562759;1:
> Here is a list of new ideas introduced into Halo through Halo 5 off the top of my head:
> - 4 person squad based campaign - Non-combat missions - Artemis tracking system - The Req system, where all unlockable content is based off a RNG system. - Warzone- 12 v 12 gamemode contains PvP, PvE, and chaotic, unpredictable situations all in one package. - Monthly free new content update system - A complex Forge mode - Weapon and vehicle varients - Individual XP/RP boosts only available to the player - Enhanced movement mechanics - ADS style zoom added to all weaponsOf the 11 things listed here, it seems that only 3-4 are highly praised all around the Halo community. Though I believe it is not a completely bad thing to have new ideas for a game, the question is this:
> Did 343 implement too many new ideas at once?
> Secondly, how should 343 approach implementing new ideas for Halo they might have? Finally, were they wrong to try out new things?
Reqs,non combat missions,ads,and some of the new movement mechanics were not needed imo.And they’re not wrong for trying new ideas,but they tried it in halo 4 and it didn’t work that well so instead of going back to halo 3 type of game play with improved mechanics they went even further with things that weren’t liked while adding more things that people didn’t like…if it ain’t broke dot fix it