We shouldn’t need a classic playlist.
We shouldn’t have a playlist with 100 people playing so that we can have a taste of what good Halo feels like. Build the game right and apply the correct core game mechanics. End of story. Have standard settings that are fun so that players can change hoppers and not have to worry about setting changes.
And what is the right core mechanics, seems like there is a bit of confusion on this by many people, possibly because I means something different to everyone.
However, to me its more about gun play:
How does the weapons feel?
How balanced against one another are they?
What is the utility weapon and how smooth does using it feel?
How fast do we innately move?
How high do we jump?
What tricks, like nade jumping will be at my disposal?
If these core aspects are intact, if you can strip everything away, except a gun and basic player traits, then everything is fluff, it wont change the game play if the core gameplay is good.
I think that is something people complaining don’t understand, Reach has horrible base gameplay, mechanics wise, movement is slow, jumps don’t work, gunplay isn’t fun. However if these are well rounded everything else will fall into place.
^ beautiful
that is where Reach fell apart, at the core
> We shouldn’t need a classic playlist.
>
> We shouldn’t have a playlist with 100 people playing so that we can have a taste of what good Halo feels like. Build the game right and apply the correct core game mechanics. End of story. Have standard settings that are fun so that players can change hoppers and not have to worry about setting changes.
QFT
Reach has a mess of settings, but in Halo 2 and 3 changes were applied across the board. That is the way Halo 4 should be. The player-base becomes too fragmented otherwise. 
Edited by Moderator - Please do not post spam.
*Original post, click at your own discretion.
yush
there’s a flaw in your analysis. which core mechanics would you apply? Ce? 2? 3?
the core mechanics have always changed, it’s the nature of halo.
the problem, though, is that change can be a very bad thing. certain things, when improperly executed, can destroy an experience.
while i agree that there needs to be a core feel to the halo experience kept in tact, i must admit that with such little information and no contextual support to base opinion on Halo 4…i can only wait to form an accurate opinion on how the game will play out. it’s what any objective person should do.
343 already knows what the competitive field wants, as well as most of everyone else. we have been telling them since reach came out really…
so why don’t we wait, be patient, gather the facts and establish a true critique of what is being done with the halo franchise?
What we should all want,
> I want a Halo 4 that keeps true to the original formula, while at the same time adds new features that reinforce the formula. There is no reason to abandon the formula that made and has kept Halo succesful, it’d be irrational. That’s why every change made should cooperate with the formula, guaranteeing gameplay that feels fresh while at the same time feeling like a true Halo game.
> there’s a flaw in your analysis. which core mechanics would you apply? Ce? 2? 3?
It should be Halo 4. Keyword, Halo.
Reach forgot what the -Yoink- it was.
That game failed for core mechanical reasons and horrible maps.
speed, jump height, bloom, bleedthrough, rank, credits didnt reward skill or winning,
AND armor abilities!!!
It’s difficult to pinpoint the worst aspect of Reach since there is so much wrong with it, but personally it wouldn’t be so bad it the gameplay itself was fun. Playing bad maps and not having rank wouldn’t matter if the game played well, like Halo, and competitively.
Unfortunately I have to play team armor lock on swordbase