I keep hearing things like, " halo needs to stay relevant, and needs Battle Royale." Or, “Halo needs to go back to its roots.” But think both are wrong staying relevant or focusing on its past only reduce the franchise to bandwagon hype. 343i embraced enhanced movement, and while other games did it first, Halo was distinct. Albeit, somewhat divided the fanbase, and suffered backlash from fans. Faster than its predecessors, but it wasnt a twitch shooter like COD or Titanfall. Its found a balance that fit its areana shooter core.
To often the term, “return to its roots” comes up, and, from what I’ve seen, it doesn’t help a franchise excel. COD WWII was the perfect example of this. It saw a massive drop in its player base, almost to the extent of COD:Ghosts. Its wants as well received as they had expected. I believe much of it was the lack of map balance, and micro transactions, but the game simply was for nostalgia sake. It simply doesn’t translate to modern shooter mechanics and people know them.
Battlefield V is following that same trend, and simply returning to its roots wont help the franchise succeed. Now EA has a whole host of other problems with political and social agendas but that’s another subject.
What I’m trying to say, is that following the current “trends” dont advance a game for its fanbase. It be cool and interesting for a but, but it gets lost in sea of other games just like it.
Did I like the enhanced movement mechanics? Hell yes! It think it refreshed the overall gameplay experience. Do I believe that 343i jumped on the enhanced movement bandwagon? For sure. But I do believe they didn’t it better than other games. For instance, aiming down sights does not reduce base movement speed. Clamber allows of interesting ways to traverse the map, sprint does have some tactical features such as quick bursts of speed to push to the next cover item, slide allows for yet more movement items that can be beneficial especially when trying to out maneuver an opponent. I also like thrust, quick dashes to avoid damage and gain an edge in gunfights. Spartan charge and ground pound are the most controversial mechanics, ik niether here nor there on the subject. Its satisfying to feel like a meteor and crash down on an enemy, but not a nessecity. But those are my opinions.
Halo needs to find a balance of what made it good what made it fun and interesting, but push the franchise into the future, and not be afraid of sticking to its guns. Or taking risks to keep the franchise different yet still Halo all the same.
I dont want BR thank you very much, i hate BR games so boring , so slow paced. I want my arena shooter in my halo. go away BR, only br that should be in halo is the battle rifle.
> 2533274815543309;81:
> I keep hearing things like, " halo needs to stay relevant, and needs Battle Royale." Or, “Halo needs to go back to its roots.” But think both are wrong staying relevant or focusing on its past only reduce the franchise to bandwagon hype. 343i embraced enhanced movement, and while other games did it first, Halo was distinct. Albeit, somewhat divided the fanbase, and suffered backlash from fans. Faster than its predecessors, but it wasnt a twitch shooter like COD or Titanfall. Its found a balance that fit its areana shooter core.
> To often the term, “return to its roots” comes up, and, from what I’ve seen, it doesn’t help a franchise excel. COD WWII was the perfect example of this. It saw a massive drop in its player base, almost to the extent of COD:Ghosts. Its wants as well received as they had expected. I believe much of it was the lack of map balance, and micro transactions, but the game simply was for nostalgia sake. It simply doesn’t translate to modern shooter mechanics and people know them.
> Battlefield V is following that same trend, and simply returning to its roots wont help the franchise succeed. Now EA has a whole host of other problems with political and social agendas but that’s another subject.
> What I’m trying to say, is that following the current “trends” dont advance a game for its fanbase. It be cool and interesting for a but, but it gets lost in sea of other games just like it.
> Did I like the enhanced movement mechanics? Hell yes! It think it refreshed the overall gameplay experience. Do I believe that 343i jumped on the enhanced movement bandwagon? For sure. But I do believe they didn’t it better than other games. For instance, aiming down sights does not reduce base movement speed. Clamber allows of interesting ways to traverse the map, sprint does have some tactical features such as quick bursts of speed to push to the next cover item, slide allows for yet more movement items that can be beneficial especially when trying to out maneuver an opponent. I also like thrust, quick dashes to avoid damage and gain an edge in gunfights. Spartan charge and ground pound are the most controversial mechanics, ik niether here nor there on the subject. Its satisfying to feel like a meteor and crash down on an enemy, but not a nessecity. But those are my opinions.
> Halo needs to find a balance of what made it good what made it fun and interesting, but push the franchise into the future, and not be afraid of sticking to its guns. Or taking risks to keep the franchise different yet still Halo all the same.
No one’s saying to stay focused on it’s past but to get back to what worked rather than doing new things that have yet to.
You reference CoDWW2 and BFV but you ignore BF1. CoDWW2s issue is that simply going to an older setting alone doesn’t equate to “back to your roots” as you completely neglect the gameplay that people wanted to see returning, BF1 had no issue on this matter as it got the setting and the game play right, and it’s success is why CoD WW2 even happened and why DiCE is doing another older setting game. Tell me why these games can’t work? The issue with BFV however isn’t it’s gameplay but EA -Yoinking!- up a good thing they had going by pushing certain agendas into it and once again letting on about microTs, players aren’t even willing to give the gameplay a chance if you’re going to pull that stunt on them and I worry it’ll fail not because of it’s quality but because of piss poor marketing and how they’re reacting to the playerbase, calling your players sexist and immature while telling them not to buy your game is just you asking to get screwed over and they’re feeling it now. Back to CoDWW2, even if it’s numbers are lower are you implying it being #9 in the most played list shows it’s failure? Far better than most of the modern games even out there.
I like how you’re opposing trends, but then you say Halo is an exception because “it’s distinct”. How so? The only distinct thing about it is it punishes you more than any other game when using the abilities, something people who already oppose it dislike and because of it’s punishments, it even gets flak from those who do like them, there’s nothing else that stands out about it. Furthermore it’s easy to say something works when you happen to like it 
(vice versa applies) but how are you objectively looking at this? What shows it’s beneficial to Halo?
“Going back to it’s roots” can easily apply here, games do it all the time. There’s a difference between copying one of your older games and then building off one with improvements.
No. It does not
> 2533274923562209;83:
> > 2533274815543309;81:
> > I keep hearing things like, " halo needs to stay relevant, and needs Battle Royale." Or, “Halo needs to go back to its roots.” But think both are wrong staying relevant or focusing on its past only reduce the franchise to bandwagon hype. 343i embraced enhanced movement, and while other games did it first, Halo was distinct. Albeit, somewhat divided the fanbase, and suffered backlash from fans. Faster than its predecessors, but it wasnt a twitch shooter like COD or Titanfall. Its found a balance that fit its areana shooter core.
> > To often the term, “return to its roots” comes up, and, from what I’ve seen, it doesn’t help a franchise excel. COD WWII was the perfect example of this. It saw a massive drop in its player base, almost to the extent of COD:Ghosts. Its wants as well received as they had expected. I believe much of it was the lack of map balance, and micro transactions, but the game simply was for nostalgia sake. It simply doesn’t translate to modern shooter mechanics and people know them.
> > Battlefield V is following that same trend, and simply returning to its roots wont help the franchise succeed. Now EA has a whole host of other problems with political and social agendas but that’s another subject.
> > What I’m trying to say, is that following the current “trends” dont advance a game for its fanbase. It be cool and interesting for a but, but it gets lost in sea of other games just like it.
> > Did I like the enhanced movement mechanics? Hell yes! It think it refreshed the overall gameplay experience. Do I believe that 343i jumped on the enhanced movement bandwagon? For sure. But I do believe they didn’t it better than other games. For instance, aiming down sights does not reduce base movement speed. Clamber allows of interesting ways to traverse the map, sprint does have some tactical features such as quick bursts of speed to push to the next cover item, slide allows for yet more movement items that can be beneficial especially when trying to out maneuver an opponent. I also like thrust, quick dashes to avoid damage and gain an edge in gunfights. Spartan charge and ground pound are the most controversial mechanics, ik niether here nor there on the subject. Its satisfying to feel like a meteor and crash down on an enemy, but not a nessecity. But those are my opinions.
> > Halo needs to find a balance of what made it good what made it fun and interesting, but push the franchise into the future, and not be afraid of sticking to its guns. Or taking risks to keep the franchise different yet still Halo all the same.
>
> No one’s saying to stay focused on it’s past but to get back to what worked rather than doing new things that have yet to.
>
> You reference CoDWW2 and BFV but you ignore BF1. CoDWW2s issue is that simply going to an older setting alone doesn’t equate to “back to your roots” as you completely neglect the gameplay that people wanted to see returning, BF1 had no issue on this matter as it got the setting and the game play right, and it’s success is why CoD WW2 even happened and why DiCE is doing another older setting game. Tell me why these games can’t work? The issue with BFV however isn’t it’s gameplay but EA -Yoinking!- up a good thing they had going by pushing certain agendas into it and once again letting on about microTs, players aren’t even willing to give the gameplay a chance if you’re going to pull that stunt on them and I worry it’ll fail not because of it’s quality but because of piss poor marketing and how they’re reacting to the playerbase, calling your players sexist and immature while telling them not to buy your game is just you asking to get screwed over and they’re feeling it now. Back to CoDWW2, even if it’s numbers are lower are you implying it being #9 in the most played list shows it’s failure? Far better than most of the modern games even out there.
>
> I like how you’re opposing trends, but then you say Halo is an exception because “it’s distinct”. How so? The only distinct thing about it is it punishes you more than any other game when using the abilities, something people who already oppose it dislike and because of it’s punishments, it even gets flak from those who do like them, there’s nothing else that stands out about it. Furthermore it’s easy to say something works when you happen to like it (vice versa applies) but how are you objectively looking at this? What shows it’s beneficial to Halo?
>
> “Going back to it’s roots” can easily apply here, games do it all the time. There’s a difference between copying one of your older games and then building off one with improvements.
I actually did describe it being distinct. But let me reiterate. I stated that while other games did do the enhanced movement before Halo, 343 was able to balance the mechanics better. It’s not a twitch shooter like COD. It’s not as fast paced as Titanfal. Its slower and more arena focused. Mechanics like smart scope dont punish you my reducing your movement speed, just for using ADS, sprint isn’t unlimited like in COD. Your shields wont recharge if you sprint- it’s not punishing you, its balancing gameplay. Giving the player the option to take cover and wait for a full charge, or take a chance and rush to the next objective, or kill; it’s a balancing act. Thrusters give you the opportunity to change gunfights, keep your enemy guessing. A quick dodge left, right or right. The ability to close in on an enemy, or back away. It’s like chess, but the moves are the abilities.
COD on the other hand limits your ability to alter gun fights. Most of the time its, he got gets first shot, shall get kill. There is nearly zero chance to reverse this and more often than not, li mk itd movement mechanics and unbalanced weapon mechanics slows down the gameplay as a whole. They’ve circumvented this by having a ridiculous TTK.
BF1 was a good multiplayer game. No ifs ands or buts. However they had to dramatically change bullet physics, and increase damage to all weapons, because of the limitations of each weapon. Because of the weapon types and accurate “representation” each weapon had to be altered to feel more powerful, it more accurate than they really are. At least for the time in which this game is set.
But in my experience, BF1 did not have the player count that its previous title was able to maintain. Sure BF4 was utterly broken at launch, but a year later l, it was one of the most player entries in the series and remained with highb player counts nearly 3 years after launch.
Just reiterating my previous statement.
People are copying the Battle Royal fad because they lack originality.
Games don’t need to copy each other to stay relevant. They just do because there are opportunities to rake in more cash if they were to copy Battle Royale.
Halo Infinite would be just as good of a game as its predecessors without Battle Royale. For starters, a full variety of gametypes that aren’t exclusives to social or ranked playlists would help. That’s what people have been asking for.
The fact that anyone want’s this confuses me. If you want Battle Royale, stick to Fortnite or PUBG. Halo is not and should never be a Battle Royale associated title.
> 2535428114126255;87:
> Halo is not and should never be a Battle Royale associated title.
I agree. However, Halo never used to be a lot of things. 343i did say they’re not working on BR mode, or words to that effect. I personally think a well made Halo BR mode could be great. Halo is changing. It never used to be a games as a service title, but recent links in popular threads seem to confirm that as real possibility, I’m not sure that will be good or bad, it depends how they implement it. Halo has changed forever imo. Halo is going in new directions according to what we have read.
Following trends as really worked out great for them in the past hasn’t it? ‘Let’s add loadouts and sprint because the call of duty guys will come back to Halo’ Nope, fell away even further. ‘oooooooh look at all that thrusting and movement in Advanced warfare! Let’s put that in too’’ Nope, faded away even more
Don’t follow trends, more likely the battle royale fad will be over by time Infinte comes out anyway. Just get back to basics.
No no no no no. Halo trying to be like other games is one of the reasons it’s not as big anymore. In halo 4 they tried to copy cod with loadouts and ordinance drops. With halo 5 they followed they enhanced mobility trend that died. If halo infinite wants to succeed they need to go back to what made the game great with its unique gameplay.
> 2533274932512744;90:
> No no no no no. Halo trying to be like other games is one of the reasons it’s not as big anymore. In halo 4 they tried to copy cod with loadouts and ordinance drops. With halo 5 they followed they enhanced mobility trend that died. If halo infinite wants to succeed they need to go back to what made the game great with its unique gameplay.
I wouldn’t say enhanced mobility ‘died’. Verticality of movement is one of the reasons I really like playing multiplayer in Destiny and Destiny 2. It’s just a unique gameplay element that some games polish really well (like Titanfall). However, as we have already seen, ‘new and unique’ gameplay elements aren’t enough to set your game apart from the rest of the industry. I really think Halo is one of those games that would benefit by sticking to it’s roots. Also I’d rather get another season of Spartan Ops than a BR mode lol.
A few things:
-
I think people are forgetting that Warzone has never been opened to custom games. - Halo has no inventory system, so no looting. - Battle Royale and shield regen don’t work. Halo would need to scrap core mechanics in the largest mode of the game.[*IF Battle Royale were a main feature of Halo Infinite]
-
Expect no BTB or Warzone whatsoever. No time left to make them. - Expect even less modes than Halo 5. - Expect the least campaign missions in the series. All the development time will go into making Halo BR compete with Fortnite and PUBG (which by the way it won’t)The problem is not loyalty. It will suck. For everyone. It will not do Battle Royale better than other games just because it’s Halo, and especially because it’s Halo. The problem is in its DNA.
At their core, PUBG and Fortnite are good Battle Royale games. At Halo’s core, is a slow-paced Arena shooter with vehicles which it happens to do so well that essentially no other games do it. Halo happens to be extremely versatile and encompasses other modes very well because of its formula, but BR is not one of them.
A game made in 2020-2021 should not follow trends from 2017. Period.
People wince too much at the thought of BR. So did I but if Halo did a unique spin on the concept, it could really stick. A custom free for all warzone type experience could knock it out of the park. Enemies drop weapons but everyone starts out with default AR so you can try to get the upper hand by taking on AI. BR is like Slayer: there can be free for all, team, elite, swat slayers, idk
We don’t know enough yet to say if BR is something that will be possible in Halo Infinite. I enjoy large scale battles, but it really depends on what Halo Infinite turns out to be. If it’s open world, large world boss encounters, or group conflict directed by some commander NPC would be interesting. Maybe like Guild wars skilled Halo players could have a commander tag and direct the troops against whatever threat we face, be that player or NPC.
343 already said that there will not be a BR mode. Good.
Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’l work with everything.
Also i really think people will be sick to death of Battle Royale by the time Infinite comes out, a lot of people already are.
Hell to the no
> 2533274939777077;97:
> Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’l work with everything.
>
> Also i really think people will be sick to death of Battle Royale by the time Infinite comes out, a lot of people already are.
I don’t think so. I hate what I’m going to write, but here goes. The Call of Duty Blackout beta was a lot of fun. It brings a fresh approach to the Battle Royale mode. If anything, it could re-ignite interest in Battle Royale. I played PUBG and I’ll be honest I lost some interest, and disliked certain things.
Blackout changed that for me, I’m not sure I’ll buy COD4, I have not bought a COD title since Black OPS 2, but Blackout has got me considering it, I don’t think Halo Infinite needs a Battle Royale mode to stay relevant, but having it’s own Battle Royale with a newer approach would do no harm imo.
However, 343i don’t seem to be doing it, and that’s a shame imo, I think Halo and Battle Royale would work if done well.
I don’t want battle royale in Halo, I sure want a mode with 100 players, but in can revolve around something akin to invasión, hell if BTB is one of the most played gamemodes imagine something with 100 players. and Forge would be crazy with it, also it doesn’t need to be battle royale per se, just a big game of 1 life only, hell imagine 100 players crammed in something akin to Sandtrap, Valhalla or Blood Gulch, I think Battle royale isn’t needed, what we need is indeed a gamemode with a whole bunch of players (something I always wanted since I started playing BTB on Halo CE)