This may be a pretty controversial topic but I think Halo Reach is the reason why Halo changed so much from 1-3.
They added armor abilities. Which caused a more casual feel.
They added preset loadouts. Which evolved into custom loadouts.
They added silly armor. Things like heart attack or pestilence.
They created a difference between elites and Spartans. A precursor to no elites in matchmaking.
They did some awesome things as well (Firefight for example) but I feel like Reach did well because it was after Halo 3 and was still riding the high. But there was no high/very little high for Halo 4 to ride.
Overall I’d say about 40% of issues in Halo 5 come from the track Bungie started with Reach, not because of 343. But that’s just my opinion.
> 2533274833937345;3:
> Actually Halo Reach was a spin off. Bungie wanted to try new things. 343 chose to continue with that trend.
>
> 343 CHOSE to continue with Halo 4
I know what you mean, and trust me, Halo 4 isn’t unexcused from this. But when one game works you tend to expand on its systems and it doesn’t necessarily work out.
Had Halo 4 come out with less stuff then Reach I would have felt cheated (but looking back I wish it had).
> 2533274833937345;3:
> Actually Halo Reach was a spin off. Bungie wanted to try new things. 343 chose to continue with that trend.
>
> 343 CHOSE to continue with Halo 4
Halo Reach was not a spinoff. ODST and Wars are spinoffs. Halo Reach was a main title game
> 2533274912317447;10:
> > 2533274833937345;3:
> > Actually Halo Reach was a spin off. Bungie wanted to try new things. 343 chose to continue with that trend.
> >
> > 343 CHOSE to continue with Halo 4
>
>
> Halo Reach was not a spinoff. ODST and Wars are spinoffs. Halo Reach was a main title game
Reach doesn’t even have the brand name “Halo” appear anywhere in the game. Not in the main menu, not in the intro cutscene to the campaign… It’s much more of a spinoff than ODST and Wars. The amount of the development time doesn’t change that.
> 2533274964200547;1:
> This may be a pretty controversial topic but I think Halo Reach is the reason why Halo changed so much from 1-3.
>
> They added armor abilities. Which caused a more casual feel.
>
> They added preset loadouts. Which evolved into custom loadouts.
>
> They added silly armor. Things like heart attack or pestilence.
>
> They created a difference between elites and Spartans. A precursor to no elites in matchmaking.
>
> They did some awesome things as well (Firefight for example) but I feel like Reach did well because it was after Halo 3 and was still riding the high. But there was no high/very little high for Halo 4 to ride.
>
> Overall I’d say about 40% of issues in Halo 5 come from the track Bungie started with Reach, not because of 343. But that’s just my opinion.
I think the reality of the situation is more nuanced than that. While yes, some of the biggest complaints people have about Halo 4 and 5 can be traced back to elements from Reach the matter of how these elements were implemented are vastly different between two developers. Reach was Bungie’s last hurrah with the universe so they threw as much as they could in the game while still being true to the original. Warts and all, Reach was still a Halo game. Comparisons to CoD were hyperbolic at the time. Once 343i took control of the franchise however it became less so; constant sprint, loadouts, killstreaks, and now clamber and thrusters. 343i has been looking at the success of Call of Duty instead of focusing on developing the core mechanics that carried the franchise for ten years. The seeds of this franchise’s downfall may have been sown with Reach but it was Halo 4 that made them bare fruit.
> 2533274964200547;1:
> This may be a pretty controversial topic but I think Halo Reach is the reason why Halo changed so much from 1-3.
>
> They added armor abilities. Which caused a more casual feel.
>
> They added preset loadouts. Which evolved into custom loadouts.
>
> They added silly armor. Things like heart attack or pestilence.
>
> They created a difference between elites and Spartans. A precursor to no elites in matchmaking.
>
> They did some awesome things as well (Firefight for example) but I feel like Reach did well because it was after Halo 3 and was still riding the high. But there was no high/very little high for Halo 4 to ride.
>
> Overall I’d say about 40% of issues in Halo 5 come from the track Bungie started with Reach, not because of 343. But that’s just my opinion.
And in general things like loadouts, bloom and AAs were hated. Things like Firefight was loved.
343i kept the loadouts and AAs, despite fans hating them. and in Halo 5 things like Firefight and split screen were removed, despite fans loving them. 343i removed custom loadouts in Halo 5, why couldn’t they have done that in Halo 4? They added ordnance in Halo 4 despite Bungie not doing anything like it in Reach. Why add flinch? when things like bloom were hated and needed removing?, Why remove gametypes?. They’ve added and removed so many things yet seem to have kept loads of bad and you’re blaming it on Reach and Bungie.
Why make such a fuss about Halo 4 needing to stay on the same path as Halo Reach yet have 343i fans argue that 343i have been taking Halo in a new direction and that they don’t want to return to Classic Halo? it’s super contradictory. If 343i can choose to make Halo 5 different, why couldn’t they choose to make Halo 4 different from Reach, especially knowing that Reach was the weakest title in the franchise in terms of gametplay?. 343i made their own choices and did so against what fans wanted/hated/loved about each of the previous games.