A lot of the ads for H5 told us that this wasn’t just a return to the “classic Halo formula”, but an EVOLUTION of it. I, personally, have to disagree. Halo 5 isn’t an evolution, its a metamorphisis. Halo CE through Reach was Halo in its Caterpillar and chrysalis forms, and H4 on is Halo in it’s Butterfly stage. Fully matured, graceful, beautiful, and yet entirely different from the Halo we knew before. Halo will never be “Halo” again, and that’s wonderful. Halo doesn’t need to go back, it shouldn’t. That Halo, that little fuzzy caterpillar we knew, is gone. And trying to turn a butterfly back into a caterpillar again won’t end well for the butterfly, and if we keep trying to change Halo back it won’t end well for Halo either.
But Reach and 4 were bad games, whereas Halo 5, though not without its flaws, is generally a good game.
Halo 5 is the business. Best since H2.
> 2533274823519895;2:
> But Reach and 4 were bad games, whereas Halo 5, though not without its flaws, is generally a good game.
Halo 5 is perhaps a good game, but it’s a bad Halo game.
> 2811398874529013;4:
> > 2533274823519895;2:
> > But Reach and 4 were bad games, whereas Halo 5, though not without its flaws, is generally a good game.
>
>
> Halo 5 is perhaps a good game, but it’s a bad Halo game.
Maybe I’m just desensitized from half a decade of crap and broken re-releases leading me to the conclusion that Halo was dead. I dunno.
> 2811398874529013;4:
> > 2533274823519895;2:
> > But Reach and 4 were bad games, whereas Halo 5, though not without its flaws, is generally a good game.
>
>
> Halo 5 is perhaps a good game, but it’s a bad Halo game.
Well, when you say it’s not a good Halo game, what do you mean? That’s sort of a rhetoric question, but I want to put my perspective into it.
For me, the best, and I mean the best Halo experience I’ve had is with Halo 3 (I’d include Halo 2, but I only played that offline). For me, a good Halo game is just Halo 3. But if we wanted to play any of the past Halo games, why wouldn’t we just play that? Without adding in new mechanics and new additions to the game, it would just be something like a second Halo 3. Halo 3: 2 Guardians? I dunno.
When I played the beta for Reach as it was coming out, I have a bad feeling about it. I didn’t like it because it wasn’t Halo 3’s gameplay. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good Halo game though.
This isn’t me evangelizing Halo 5, I believe it to be just an average game. They’ve made a new game but taken a few steps in the wrong direction for a few people. The lack of content right off the bat doesn’t help it much either. I guess I just want to know what people mean when they think of a Halo game, and how it could be expanded upon without being redundant. How it could be a new game.
> 2533274822820920;6:
> > 2811398874529013;4:
> > > 2533274823519895;2:
> > > But Reach and 4 were bad games, whereas Halo 5, though not without its flaws, is generally a good game.
> >
> >
> > Halo 5 is perhaps a good game, but it’s a bad Halo game.
>
>
> Well, when you say it’s not a good Halo game, what do you mean? That’s sort of a rhetoric question, but I want to put my perspective into it.
>
> For me, the best, and I mean the best Halo experience I’ve had is with Halo 3 (I’d include Halo 2, but I only played that offline). For me, a good Halo game is just Halo 3. But if we wanted to play any of the past Halo games, why wouldn’t we just play that? Without adding in new mechanics and new additions to the game, it would just be something like a second Halo 3. Halo 3: 2 Guardians? I dunno.
> When I played the beta for Reach as it was coming out, I have a bad feeling about it. I didn’t like it because it wasn’t Halo 3’s gameplay. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good Halo game though.
>
> This isn’t me evangelizing Halo 5, I believe it to be just an average game. They’ve made a new game but taken a few steps in the wrong direction for a few people. The lack of content right off the bat doesn’t help it much either. I guess I just want to know what people mean when they think of a Halo game, and how it could be expanded upon without being redundant. How it could be a new game.
My best Halo experiences were Halo 1 LAN parties. Halos 2 and 3 were fantastic as well. To me, a good Halo game has a medium pace and flow to it. It balances strategy with gunplay. When you approach the enemy base, you should feel a sense of tension because a mistake means a long run back to the action. With the newer Halos, that sense of tension goes out the window because the wacky new ways to zip around the map put you right back into things with no real penalty for your misstep.
A new Halo game can add features without -yoinking- with the gameplay mechanics too badly. For instance, Warzone. I feel that Warzone was a good addition to the franchise. It’s a new way to play, with new features. However, it suffers from the sped up gameplay that’s been shoved down our throats. I’d much rather see a version of Warzone built for the classic trilogy than what we’ve got now.
> 2533274868707776;1:
> A lot of the ads for H5 told us that this wasn’t just a return to the “classic Halo formula”, but an EVOLUTION of it. I, personally, have to disagree. Halo 5 isn’t an evolution, its a metamorphisis. Halo CE through Reach was Halo in its Caterpillar and chrysalis forms, and H4 on is Halo in it’s Butterfly stage. Fully matured, graceful, beautiful, and yet entirely different from the Halo we knew before. Halo will never be “Halo” again, and that’s wonderful. Halo doesn’t need to go back, it shouldn’t. That Halo, that little fuzzy caterpillar we knew, is gone. And trying to turn a butterfly back into a caterpillar again won’t end well for the butterfly, and if we keep trying to change Halo back it won’t end well for Halo either.
Here’s the issue…
Halo: CE through Halo: Reach had gradual changes. Much like your caterpillar metaphor. However just between Reach and 4, it seems what was about to become a butterfly suddenly was a moth. Bearing no meaningful resemblance to a butterfly Halo 5 took that further. A game series needs 1-2 brand spanking new things and improvement to all the existing individual things per game. What 343i has done is basically make a new game all together and slap the franchise name on it.
> 2535439832357675;8:
> > 2533274868707776;1:
> > A lot of the ads for H5 told us that this wasn’t just a return to the “classic Halo formula”, but an EVOLUTION of it. I, personally, have to disagree. Halo 5 isn’t an evolution, its a metamorphisis. Halo CE through Reach was Halo in its Caterpillar and chrysalis forms, and H4 on is Halo in it’s Butterfly stage. Fully matured, graceful, beautiful, and yet entirely different from the Halo we knew before. Halo will never be “Halo” again, and that’s wonderful. Halo doesn’t need to go back, it shouldn’t. That Halo, that little fuzzy caterpillar we knew, is gone. And trying to turn a butterfly back into a caterpillar again won’t end well for the butterfly, and if we keep trying to change Halo back it won’t end well for Halo either.
>
>
> Here’s the issue…
>
> Halo: CE through Halo: Reach had gradual changes. Much like your caterpillar metaphor. However just between Reach and 4, it seems what was about to become a butterfly suddenly was a moth. Bearing no meaningful resemblance to a butterfly Halo 5 took that further. A game series needs 1-2 brand spanking new things and improvement to all the existing individual things per game. What 343i has done is basically make a new game all together and slap the franchise name on it.
Well, that is the general idea, a dramatic change in form in which what is now is near unrecognizable from what was before, and will never be what it was before again. Halo 4 and 5 only share minor similarities with the original trilogy, mainly the names; “Halo”, “Master Chief”, “The Covenant”, etc… A caterpillar and butterfly/moth rarely have many similarities, just like how H4 and 5 share few similarities with H1-3
> 2533274868707776;9:
> > 2535439832357675;8:
> > > 2533274868707776;1:
> > > A lot of the ads for H5 told us that this wasn’t just a return to the “classic Halo formula”, but an EVOLUTION of it. I, personally, have to disagree. Halo 5 isn’t an evolution, its a metamorphisis. Halo CE through Reach was Halo in its Caterpillar and chrysalis forms, and H4 on is Halo in it’s Butterfly stage. Fully matured, graceful, beautiful, and yet entirely different from the Halo we knew before. Halo will never be “Halo” again, and that’s wonderful. Halo doesn’t need to go back, it shouldn’t. That Halo, that little fuzzy caterpillar we knew, is gone. And trying to turn a butterfly back into a caterpillar again won’t end well for the butterfly, and if we keep trying to change Halo back it won’t end well for Halo either.
> >
> >
> > Here’s the issue…
> >
> > Halo: CE through Halo: Reach had gradual changes. Much like your caterpillar metaphor. However just between Reach and 4, it seems what was about to become a butterfly suddenly was a moth. Bearing no meaningful resemblance to a butterfly Halo 5 took that further. A game series needs 1-2 brand spanking new things and improvement to all the existing individual things per game. What 343i has done is basically make a new game all together and slap the franchise name on it.
>
>
> Well, that is the general idea, a dramatic change in form in which what is now is near unrecognizable from what was before, and will never be what it was before again. Halo 4 and 5 only share minor similarities with the original trilogy, mainly the names; “Halo”, “Master Chief”, “The Covenant”, etc… A caterpillar and butterfly/moth rarely have many similarities, just like how H4 and 5 share few similarities with H1-3
However, Halo 4 and Halo 5 are SEQUELS to Halos 1-3. It’s reasonable to think that a sequel should play like its predecessors.
> 2811398874529013;4:
> > 2533274823519895;2:
> > But Reach and 4 were bad games, whereas Halo 5, though not without its flaws, is generally a good game.
>
>
> Halo 5 is perhaps a good game, but it’s a bad Halo game.
That’s kinda what I’m sayin’, sorta… H5 is excellent, but it shouldn’t be called a Halo game, because it isn’t, the only similarities it shares with previous installments are names.
Agreed. I’m absolutely loving Halo 5.
> 2811398874529013;10:
> > 2533274868707776;9:
> > > 2535439832357675;8:
> > > > 2533274868707776;1:
> > > > A lot of the ads for H5 told us that this wasn’t just a return to the “classic Halo formula”, but an EVOLUTION of it. I, personally, have to disagree. Halo 5 isn’t an evolution, its a metamorphisis. Halo CE through Reach was Halo in its Caterpillar and chrysalis forms, and H4 on is Halo in it’s Butterfly stage. Fully matured, graceful, beautiful, and yet entirely different from the Halo we knew before. Halo will never be “Halo” again, and that’s wonderful. Halo doesn’t need to go back, it shouldn’t. That Halo, that little fuzzy caterpillar we knew, is gone. And trying to turn a butterfly back into a caterpillar again won’t end well for the butterfly, and if we keep trying to change Halo back it won’t end well for Halo either.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here’s the issue…
> > >
> > > Halo: CE through Halo: Reach had gradual changes. Much like your caterpillar metaphor. However just between Reach and 4, it seems what was about to become a butterfly suddenly was a moth. Bearing no meaningful resemblance to a butterfly Halo 5 took that further. A game series needs 1-2 brand spanking new things and improvement to all the existing individual things per game. What 343i has done is basically make a new game all together and slap the franchise name on it.
> >
> >
> > Well, that is the general idea, a dramatic change in form in which what is now is near unrecognizable from what was before, and will never be what it was before again. Halo 4 and 5 only share minor similarities with the original trilogy, mainly the names; “Halo”, “Master Chief”, “The Covenant”, etc… A caterpillar and butterfly/moth rarely have many similarities, just like how H4 and 5 share few similarities with H1-3
>
>
> However, Halo 4 and Halo 5 are SEQUELS to Halos 1-3. It’s reasonable to think that a sequel should play like its predecessors.
It is, I totally agree, but 343 didn’t and made their own decision, and we aren’t 343, unfortunately.
When I read the title this wasn’t the direction I expected the thread to take. Now I’m thinking this thread took quite a strange turn. Especially the part where Halo 4 and graceful are used in the same sentence.
If they released the same game every few years, I’d be unhappy. I’m glad they add new features and change things around. If we were still running off CE mechanics and weapon sets, I wouldn’t have made it through Halo 2 (I barely made it through CE).
Halo Reach was an evolution of Halo CE
I personally disagree. I think it is an evolution of Halo. Just that it took steps backward towards 2/3 before moving forward again. Almost like a split timeline in a way. Except, instead of time, it’s gameplay mechanics.
> 2533274871929668;16:
> Halo Reach was an evolution of Halo CE
Mmm, that is a highly debatable statement. But then, so is everything when it comes to the “evolution” of the franchise.
> 2533274819302824;18:
> > 2533274871929668;16:
> > Halo Reach was an evolution of Halo CE
>
>
> Mmm, that is a highly debatable statement. But then, so is everything when it comes to the “evolution” of the franchise.
I mean what did it have that was so different from CE? Movement was the same, except for armor abilities.
I mean it was supposed to be like that, game play and canonically
> I mean what did it have that was so different from CE?
-Hitscan Guns
-Slow 1.5s+ Killtimes
-Bloom, Derpy Melee
-Map Design in general
-Sandbox design
-I could go on, but I won’t, but I could.
To me Ce has yet to have an actual successor.