This will help all you people understand what 343 is trying to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovs2wz41eKE&feature=g-vrec
(not sure if link works, never tryed it b4)
> This will help all you people understand what 343 is trying to do.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovs2wz41eKE&feature=g-vrec
>
>
> (not sure if link works, never tryed it b4)
People don’t understand that Halo MUST evolve. And by doing so it’s borrowing one or two elements seen in Call of Duty. What’s the big deal? “HALO HAS WEAPON SKINZ, OMG 343 YOU KILLED MY HALOZ!”. It’s sad that people really do react like that. People would be insulting Halo the same way we currently insult COD if it didn’t change. Not to mention, 343 is adding so much new content to the game like Spartan Ops. Speaking of which… “Spartan OPS… Spec OPS… OMGZ HALOZIS COPYINGZ CALL OF DOOOOOOOOODY!”
At best this guy is condescending.
At worst this guy is a -Yoink!- Puppet.
Games change, but they can do so without undermining their core values.
This guy wants to talk about “the golden triangle?” Then why add perks, AAs, etc? These are adding unnecessary legs to the tripod.
How do you evolve a game like Halo? Modifying the sandbox and tweaking game mechanics such as speed, jump heighth, etc. Not pulling elements from completely different games and forcing the square peg into the round hole.
> At best this guy is condescending.
> At worst this guy is a -Yoink!- Puppet.
>
> Games change, but they can do so without undermining their core values.
> This guy wants to talk about “the golden triangle?” Then why add perks, AAs, etc? These are adding unnecessary legs to the tripod.
> How do you evolve a game like Halo? Modifying the sandbox and tweaking game mechanics such as speed, jump heighth, etc. Not pulling elements from completely different games and forcing the square peg into the round hole.
I respectfully disagree. I can’t really imagine playing the Halo 2/3 formula in the year 2018. It will become outdated. Just like COD4’s.
> This will help all you people understand what 343 is trying to do.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovs2wz41eKE&feature=g-vrec
>
>
> (not sure if link works, never tryed it b4)
Yeah this has been shown before on these forums.
However, Manolta knows what he’s talking about. Unfortunately, some people are too ignorant to take the message.
> This will help all you people understand what 343 is trying to do.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovs2wz41eKE&feature=g-vrec
>
>
> (not sure if link works, never tryed it b4)
i actually find what this guy is saying very true, and i completely agree, people just have to learn how to adapt and love halo 4 for what it is and what it will be, 343 is never going to just take halo 2 and 3 and rename them and put them into a new case…
So instead well obliterate Halo’s core value of BALANCE?
That’s what drives Halo and separates it from its competitors . . . Well, used to . .
> So instead well obliterate Halo’s core value of BALANCE?
>
> That’s what drives Halo and separates it from its competitors . . . Well, used to . .
Games in the past have succeeded in balancing out these factors and we all know 343i is trying hard to balance it out. e.g. The Cortana Web
> > So instead well obliterate Halo’s core value of BALANCE?
> >
> > That’s what drives Halo and separates it from its competitors . . . Well, used to . .
>
> Games in the past have succeeded in balancing out these factors and we all know 343i is trying hard to balance it out. e.g. The Cortana Web
Point me towards the game that has actually balanced these elements? There’s always something more useful, more OP. I know they’re trying. Bungie tried. It just doesn’t work like that. How do you balance the ability to fly against the ability to see through walls? How do you balance an extra grenade to regenerating shields faster?
What’s the Cortana Web?
> So instead well obliterate Halo’s core value of BALANCE?
>
> That’s what drives Halo and separates it from its competitors . . . Well, used to . .
How do you know its unbalanced?
Answer: YOU DON’T 
> > At best this guy is condescending.
> > At worst this guy is a -Yoink!- Puppet.
> >
> > Games change, but they can do so without undermining their core values.
> > This guy wants to talk about “the golden triangle?” Then why add perks, AAs, etc? These are adding unnecessary legs to the tripod.
> > How do you evolve a game like Halo? Modifying the sandbox and tweaking game mechanics such as speed, jump heighth, etc. Not pulling elements from completely different games and forcing the square peg into the round hole.
>
> I respectfully disagree. I can’t really imagine playing the Halo 2/3 formula in the year 2018. It will become outdated. Just like COD4’s.
Lol, COD is using a very similar formula from COD 4, it’s pretty much the exact same game every year but with a few more gimmicks attached, I could actually bear COD 4 but since then so much -Yoink- has been thrown into COD that I can’t stand it anymore. At the moment all that is happening with Halo is that they are throwing more and more -Yoink- into it.
I don’t consider recycling features that have been used multiple times in modern shooters as evolving I actually see it as regressing, Halo will lose its unique formula and it will become a washed up franchise like Medal of Honor if it continues in the same direction it is going.
> At best this guy is condescending.
> At worst this guy is a -Yoink!- Puppet.
>
> Games change, but they can do so without undermining their core values.
> This guy wants to talk about “the golden triangle?” Then why add perks, AAs, etc? These are adding unnecessary legs to the tripod.
> How do you evolve a game like Halo? Modifying the sandbox and tweaking game mechanics such as speed, jump heighth, etc. Not pulling elements from completely different games and forcing the square peg into the round hole.
You can take something from another game, cut it up so it can fit with the circle, and allow it to work.
It’s unnecessary if they do not work period. AAs did work, but at their state in Reach, they were too far at either end of the spectrums. Tweaking them down can make them better. Making sprint available to everyone nerfs itself, and many other AAs that would dominate another ability. Such as a Jetpacker against a Hologram: If he sees the real target, what good does it do now that the jetpacker is ignoring the dummy?
Perks in CoD were often paired up with perks on the guns, causing them to be uber powerful in CoD. What they can do is avoid direct, mandatory perks, such as health/shield/damage increases, stay the eff away from weapon mods, and allow less perks on one character. This nerfs them entirely by avoiding potential combinations that would be very powerful, but on their own wouldn’t have such a big impact.
Weapon Loadouts in Reach where basically a select an AA. In CoD, you can practically spawn with a huge combination. By limiting the weapons available, and have an actual balanced weapon sandbox, players do not spawn with stuff that dominates. To further keep players who do not play often from getting owned by those who do, adding a default loadout with appropriate gear for the map and gametype can keep players satisfied.
If there’s a con to something, fix it up. Chances are, 343 played CoD and went, “You know, this could’ve been really great. However, the way they are now makes them BS. I bet we can do better.”
From the leaks, it looks they are trying to do just that, in the exact same manner when Bungie first made Halo: When they finally got a FPS that can play damn well on a console, making it available to all to those who can’t spend a crap-ton of money on a good computer, and got others to follow suit.
> > > So instead well obliterate Halo’s core value of BALANCE?
> > >
> > > That’s what drives Halo and separates it from its competitors . . . Well, used to . .
> >
> > Games in the past have succeeded in balancing out these factors and we all know 343i is trying hard to balance it out. e.g. The Cortana Web
>
> Point me towards the game that has actually balanced these elements? There’s always something more useful, more OP. I know they’re trying. Bungie tried. It just doesn’t work like that. How do you balance the ability to fly against the ability to see through walls? How do you balance an extra grenade to regenerating shields faster?
>
> <mark>What’s the Cortana Web?
[/quote]
</mark>
>
>
> What?
>
>
> I guess I’ll explain it to the best of my abilities.
>
> It’s a system which takes weapon data from matches (Or any data) and finds an average to see if any weapon is under or over-powered so the guys at 343i can tweak any unbalanced weapon.
>
> Someone also said it can automatically detect hackers/modders although I’m not too sure if that one is a rumor.
> > So instead well obliterate Halo’s core value of BALANCE?
> >
> > That’s what drives Halo and separates it from its competitors . . . Well, used to . .
>
> How do you know its unbalanced?
>
> Answer: YOU DON’T
Sigh . . .
Given the information presented along with past knowledge I have predicted that once again gimmicky loadouts, AAs, Perks, etc will continue to lead us into an unbalanced, partially random game.
Because I’m actually thinking about the information given than just blindly assuming that in the first time in the history of ever, these features will be completely balanced.
The argument “you don’t know that” is futile in a speculative, opinion based topic and forum.
> > > At best this guy is condescending.
> > > At worst this guy is a -Yoink!- Puppet.
> > >
> > > Games change, but they can do so without undermining their core values.
> > > This guy wants to talk about “the golden triangle?” Then why add perks, AAs, etc? These are adding unnecessary legs to the tripod.
> > > How do you evolve a game like Halo? Modifying the sandbox and tweaking game mechanics such as speed, jump heighth, etc. Not pulling elements from completely different games and forcing the square peg into the round hole.
> >
> > I respectfully disagree. I can’t really imagine playing the Halo 2/3 formula in the year 2018. It will become outdated. Just like COD4’s.
>
> Lol, COD is using a very similar formula from COD 4, it’s pretty much the exact same game every year but with a few more gimmicks attached, I could actually bear COD 4 but since then so much Yoink! has been thrown into COD that I can’t stand it anymore. At the moment all that is happening with Halo is that they are throwing more and more Yoink! into it.
>
> I don’t consider recycling features that have been used multiple times in modern shooters as evolving I actually see it as regressing, Halo will lose its unique formula and it will become a washed up franchise like Medal of Honor if it continues in the same direction it is going.
Ever heard of spartan ops? Sounds pretty unique to me. My point? That you only point out things that are similar to other games and fail to accept anything unique to halo 4.
> > > > At best this guy is condescending.
> > > > At worst this guy is a -Yoink!- Puppet.
> > > >
> > > > Games change, but they can do so without undermining their core values.
> > > > This guy wants to talk about “the golden triangle?” Then why add perks, AAs, etc? These are adding unnecessary legs to the tripod.
> > > > How do you evolve a game like Halo? Modifying the sandbox and tweaking game mechanics such as speed, jump heighth, etc. Not pulling elements from completely different games and forcing the square peg into the round hole.
> > >
> > > I respectfully disagree. I can’t really imagine playing the Halo 2/3 formula in the year 2018. It will become outdated. Just like COD4’s.
> >
> > Lol, COD is using a very similar formula from COD 4, it’s pretty much the exact same game every year but with a few more gimmicks attached, I could actually bear COD 4 but since then so much Yoink! has been thrown into COD that I can’t stand it anymore. At the moment all that is happening with Halo is that they are throwing more and more Yoink! into it.
> >
> > I don’t consider recycling features that have been used multiple times in modern shooters as evolving I actually see it as regressing, Halo will lose its unique formula and it will become a washed up franchise like Medal of Honor if it continues in the same direction it is going.
>
> Ever heard of spartan ops? Sounds pretty unique to me. My point? That you only point out things that are similar to other games and fail to accept anything unique to halo 4.
How does spartan ops sound original or unique in any way? It’s just a series of coop missions. In case you haven’t noticed both Battlefield and COD have that feature. I’m fairly sure other games have it as well.
> > > > So instead well obliterate Halo’s core value of BALANCE?
> > > >
> > > > That’s what drives Halo and separates it from its competitors . . . Well, used to . .
> > >
> > > Games in the past have succeeded in balancing out these factors and we all know 343i is trying hard to balance it out. e.g. The Cortana Web
> >
> > Point me towards the game that has actually balanced these elements? There’s always something more useful, more OP. I know they’re trying. Bungie tried. It just doesn’t work like that. How do you balance the ability to fly against the ability to see through walls? How do you balance an extra grenade to regenerating shields faster?
> >
> > <mark>What’s the Cortana Web?
[/quote]
</mark>
> >
> >
> > What?
> >
> >
> > I guess I’ll explain it to the best of my abilities.
> >
> > It’s a system which takes weapon data from matches (Or any data) and finds an average to see if any weapon is under or over-powered so the guys at 343i can tweak any unbalanced weapon.
> >
> > Someone also said it can automatically detect hackers/modders although I’m not too sure if that one is a rumor.
>
> Is this meant to be implemented post-launch?
Developers should be making a new IP to compete with what’s hot in the industry, not take an existing IP and warp it into something it’s not (especially when the two are so vastly different!). We have a word to describe this process though, it’s called selling out:
> “Selling out” is the compromising of integrity, morality, or principles in exchange for money or “success” (however defined). It is commonly associated with attempts to tailor material to a mainstream audience. Any artist who expands their creative path to encompass a wider audience, as opposed to continuing in the genre and venues of their initial success, may be disdainfully labeled by disapproving fans as a sellout. Sometimes a sellout is seen as a person that is disloyal to a group to which he or she belongs (usually ethnic group) in order to gain money or become “successful”. Selling out is often seen as gaining success at the cost of credibility.
Halo and Call of Duty are so fundamentally different. One’s a class-based tactical-shooter whilst the other is a consoles’ imitation of an arena shooter. How can you compare them? How can you say it’s okay to take from one and implement it into another? Apples and oranges, planes and cars, arena shooters and tactical shooters.
343 are removing vital elements of Halo’s arena style gameplay, such as map-spawned powerups, weapons and equal spawning player traits to pander to another audience, a bigger audience; those that prefer to play tactical shooters over arena-esque ones. Halo 4’s turning into a sci-fi class-based tactical-shooter. If you like the direction Halo 4’s going in good for you, but don’t be so naive to think if others don’t they simply don’t “understand”.
An old post of mine I think is relevant (I need 2 posts, damn you character limit!):
> > Quick note: this is multiplayer centric, because it’s why I, and a lot of others play Halo.
>
>
> Hm… where do I start. For one, Halo and Call of Duty represent different sub-genres of first person shooters (which is a sub-genre onto itself!). Halo is, or, was, an arena shooter franchise, whilst Call of Duty has always been a tactical, class-based shooter. The main gripe a lot of players have with Reach, and Halo 4, is that the franchise is going away from being an arena shooter and coming closer to becoming a tactical class-based shooter, like Call of Duty. The announcements of things like perks, weapon customisation and skins furthers the notation that the franchise is changing sub-genres as these mechanics are popular in tactical class-based shooters and are almost non-existent in arena shooters.
>
> But what are arena and tactical shooters?
>
> Let’s go back in time, to the year 1991. Id software released their new game, Hover Tank 3D. A classic shoot 'em up, but it had an interesting gimmick. The game was played in three dimensions! Yes, this was an early first person shooter; a shooter game played from the first person perspective. With id software’s next release, Catacomb 3-D, the game featured new mechanics: powerups, items and weapons that spawned on the map awaiting use from players. Thus the sub-genre of first person shooters was born, arena shooters! Id software continued to refine and play with this sub-genre throughout their career with games like Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, and Quake. In order for a first person shooter to be classified as an arena shooter it needs to follow the basic outlines of one, which means it must have an arena (map) containing powerups, items and weapons.
>
> Tactical shooters came after arena shooters, and were a product of wanting to do something different; to break away from the norm, because believe it or not, back in the early days, if you played a FPS it was an arena shooter. The tactical shooter sub-genre of first person shooters simulates realistic combat situations, which means tactics and caution are of centre focus. This is polar opposite to arena games, where caution is hindering and twitch-reflexes and thinking are a must, though tactics are a large factor in both sub-genres. The actual level of realism in a tactical shooter can vary from anything to combat simulation games like Red Orchestra, to arcade games such as Counter Strike or Call of Duty. Since this sub-genre focuses on realistic combat situations games that fall into this category tend to lack map-spawned powerups, items and weapons. However, theoretically, a game can become a tactical arena shooter. I’ve yet too see one though.
> Halo’s multiplayer is arena shooter-esque… but was it meant to be?
>
> Halo CE’s multiplayer component fits squarely with what defines an arena shooter (though CE is slower paced than the normal arena shooter), and that’s probably because the multiplayer was rushed and based of what was popular at the time: Quake 3 (an arena shooter by id software). If Bungie had more time to develop Halo: Combat Evolved I have no doubt in my mind the multiplayer would be very different to what it eventually became. I imagine it would’ve been a lot more like Reach. The fact that Bungie calls Halo: Reach their definitive Halo game and their original vision of CE strengthens this notation. Though if Halo: CE didn’t turn out the way it did I, and others, probably wouldn’t of started playing Halo.
>
> Regardless, I say this because Halo’s multiplayer and campaign components are extremely disjointed. The campaign component of Halo is quite realistic in its universe of discourse; Master Chief can’t magically carry an infinite amount of weapons, weapons need reloading, he fights alongside squads of troopers, etc… Everything is explained to the user, and everything behaves in a realistic military manner (in terms of science fiction, anyway). However, when you look at the multiplayer component you have strange play spaces that make no fictional sense, weapons, items, powerups and players that magically appear on the map: nothing makes sense and things are there simply for the purpose of what’s fun.
>
> With Reach they removed things that didn’t make sense, such as powerups (a vital aspect of arena shooters), and added in things that made multiplayer seem more realistic, and comprehensible. How do Spartans jump so high? Jet packs. How are Spartans able to run so fast? They sprint. How do Spartans turn invisible? A ‘magical’ powerup doesn’t make sense, but a sophisticated electronic cloaking device does. Guns don’t shoot perfectly straight (even in the future!) so bloom was added to add that level of realism in the Halo universe. Reach also introduced more realistic multiplayer scenarios, such as the Invasion gametype. Whilst Reach’s multiplayer isn’t quite the definition of a tactical shooter, Bungie were heading in that direction. This is why a lot of Halo players “hate” Reach; they like arena shooters, not tactical shooters.
>
> 343 want to continue fleshing out the multiplayer component of Halo, and the result of that is a game that resembles a tactical shooter more than an arena shooter, because that’s what the Halo universe calls for. 343 want a game that simulates realistic combat situations in the Halo universe.
>
>
> > Tactical shooters are designed for realism. It is not unusual for players to be killed with a single bullet, and thus players must be more cautious than in other shooter games. The emphasis is on realistic modeling of weapons, and power-ups are often more limited than in other action games. This restrains the individual heroism seen in other shooter games, and thus tactics become more important. Overall, the style of play is typically slower than other action games. Jumping techniques are sometimes de-emphasized in order to promote realism, with some games going so far as to omit a jump button. In contrast to games that emphasize running and shooting, tactical shooters require more caution and patience, and games are sometimes designed so that shooting becomes inaccurate while running. Some tactical shooters lack the crosshair seen in other first-person shooters, in order to achieve a high degree of realism.
> >
> > Many tactical shooters make use of group-based combat… Many games also offer a multiplayer online play, allowing human players to strategize. Team-based tactics are emphasized more than other shooter games, and thus accurate aiming and quick reflexes are not always sufficient for victory.
> >
> > The level design usually reflects the game’s setting… Some games take place in entirely fictional universes, and incorporate elements of science fiction. Each level will have different objectives. Although some levels may simply require that the player defeat their enemy, other levels may challenge the player to escort a VIP safely to a specific location. Levels are often designed with check points or alternate routes. It becomes important to exploit a superior position, or take the enemy by surprise.
>
> Gameplay from Halo: Combat Evolved. Gameplay from Halo: Reach.
>
> Players aren’t bashing Halo 4 because it has feature similar to Call of Duty, but because the game is gradually moving away from being an arena shooter and more towards being a sci-fi tactical shooter, and the CoD-esque features back up the notation (and their ‘fears’). Can you really blame them though? The original trilogy’s multiplayer targeted fans of arena shooters, and now it’s changing.
> > At best this guy is condescending.
> > At worst this guy is a -Yoink!- Puppet.
> >
> > Games change, but they can do so without undermining their core values.
> > This guy wants to talk about “the golden triangle?” Then why add perks, AAs, etc? These are adding unnecessary legs to the tripod.
> > How do you evolve a game like Halo? Modifying the sandbox and tweaking game mechanics such as speed, jump heighth, etc. Not pulling elements from completely different games and forcing the square peg into the round hole.
>
> You can take something from another game, cut it up so it can fit with the circle, and allow it to work.
>
> It’s unnecessary if they do not work period. AAs did work, but at their state in Reach, they were too far at either end of the spectrums. Tweaking them down can make them better. Making sprint available to everyone nerfs itself, and many other AAs that would dominate another ability. Such as a Jetpacker against a Hologram: If he sees the real target, what good does it do now that the jetpacker is ignoring the dummy?
>
> Perks in CoD were often paired up with perks on the guns, causing them to be uber powerful in CoD. What they can do is avoid direct, mandatory perks, such as health/shield/damage increases, stay the eff away from weapon mods, and allow less perks on one character. This nerfs them entirely by avoiding potential combinations that would be very powerful, but on their own wouldn’t have such a big impact.
>
> Weapon Loadouts in Reach where basically a select an AA. In CoD, you can practically spawn with a huge combination. By limiting the weapons available, and have an actual balanced weapon sandbox, players do not spawn with stuff that dominates. To further keep players who do not play often from getting owned by those who do, adding a default loadout with appropriate gear for the map and gametype can keep players satisfied.
>
>
> If there’s a con to something, fix it up. Chances are, 343 played CoD and went, “You know, this could’ve been really great. However, the way they are now makes them BS. I bet we can do better.”
>
> From the leaks, it looks they are trying to do just that, in the exact same manner when Bungie first made Halo: When they finally got a FPS that can play damn well on a console, making it available to all to those who can’t spend a crap-ton of money on a good computer, and got others to follow suit.
Wonderful argument! 
I have to disagree though because I’m afraid all of these things that you’re stating 343i should steer clear from are the pieces they’re implementing.
I hope it’s closer to your perception.