Halo's next trilogy needs to break from the mold. Not from the Spirit.

Games Other Halo
1

Part “1” as I would call it of Halo is done. Halo 1, 2, 3, ODST and Reach are a fun set of games that are gifted with size and openess yet killed by some short campaigns and later on more restrictions (I.E GET RID OF INVIS WALLS AND DEATH ZONES)

Yet with Halo 4, 5, 6 opens up a huge amount of possible things 343i can add. Yet 343i has a problem, a huge, nasty, ugly problem with a very simple and easy solution.

us. Some of “US” are so devoted to Halo that the very fact of changing any element of it leads to hate and despair. Most of the new things added in Halo are bashed on and removed or changed because people want the same game over and over. Yet these very people will bash and hate on Call of Duty for being just that, the same game over and over. However it seems like that’s what they want in Halo. Halo 1, Halo1, Halo2, Halo2, Halo2, Halo2. AA’s weren’t a terrible idea, equipment wasn’t a bad idea either but people don’t like change, they can’t adapt or can but choose to control it.

Seems like most people just want Pistols, DMR’s, Snipers and BR’s in close quarters maps with only slayer and no vehicles, no power weapons, no machines, nothing but a few guns and maps and boxes. Yet Halo is more then that and should always be.

Luckily Bungie didn’t go by that. They didn’t just make the same game over and over they made new games with changes. Even when those changes were looked upon as bad and terrible. Yet do we really want Halo 4, 5, 6 to just be a mirror of a game we played 5+ years ago? Was Halo 2 really that good…Did we not forget the glitches, the hackers, the terrible weapon balance. Some elements should always stay with Halo yet change is a friend that we take for granted. The irony is change is what we ask for, but change is what we hate it for.

Let 343i make a new game. A game that by spirit is Halo in every way but a game that can try new. Do new. And not be weighted down by a group of kids that are so bound on playing the same game that they would rather have Halo turn into COD as long as they get there damn Battle Rifle and Pistol back then to let it go big, wild, and do what Halo:CE did in the first place!

I want a new trilogy. Halo in all spirit. But not Halo 3.5 or 2.5 or 1.5 or yea.

2

No. I want Halo for what Halo is. It’s the same reason why people want CoD for what it is, why people want Battlefield for what it is, why people want GoW for what it is, why people want any kind of sequel for what it is. It’s a very, very basic concept that some people would gladly overlook for the sake of innovation.

Thing is, we want for because we want a good precision weapon. We want Halo because we want to strafe people and -Yoink!- them when you embarrassed them online. We want Halo because it is Halo. What you are trying to do is turn Halo into something that it’s not. When people want vanilla ice cream, the vendor isn’t going to give them chocolate. Thousands of gamers support Halo because it is Halo: not because Halo could be something else. Halo is a cultural phenomenon because of the core foundations of Halo. It’s because of the one-gun gameplay and useless AR; it’s for the power weapon--Yoink!- and the arena style maps. It’s for the smooth flow of gameplay and the fluidity of map movement and coordination. It’s not because of bloom, armor abilities, equipment, or any of that junk. It’s successful because it is what it is, not what it could be.

3

I don’t feel like typing out a massive response, so I’ll simplify it by a lot.

A change as massive as loadouts and AA’s = bad
A change as simple as equipment = good

4

> No. I want Halo for what Halo is. It’s the same reason why people want CoD for what it is, why people want Battlefield for what it is, why people want GoW for what it is, why people want any kind of sequel for what it is. It’s a very, very basic concept that some people would gladly overlook for the sake of innovation.
>
> Thing is, we want for because we want a good precision weapon. We want Halo because we want to strafe people and -Yoink!- them when you embarrassed them online. We want Halo because it is Halo. What you are trying to do is turn Halo into something that it’s not. When people want vanilla ice cream, the vendor isn’t going to give them chocolate. Thousands of gamers support Halo because it is Halo: not because Halo could be something else. Halo is a cultural phenomenon because of the core foundations of Halo. It’s because of the one-gun gameplay and useless AR; it’s for the power weapon--Yoink!- and the arena style maps. It’s for the smooth flow of gameplay and the fluidity of map movement and coordination. It’s not because of bloom, armor abilities, equipment, or any of that junk. It’s successful because it is what it is, not what it could be.

There’s a difference between changing gameplay, and changing the game. Take your vanilla ice cream analogy, for example. If the vendor were to give you chocolate, yes, you’d be rightly upset. But if he simply gives you a different flavor of vanilla than what you expected, you can’t be upset at him for not being able to read your mind. You can simply try the new flavor, and if you like it, great. If you don’t, simply ask for a different one next time.

As the OP said, change is not necessarily bad. Who are you to define what Halo is and what it isn’t? Who are you to decide what makes the game great and what doesn’t?

5

I honestly think that the way CoD does things is great. The developers found a formula they felt comfortable with and they found an audience that loved it as well. Then they just stuck with it. It’s the reason it’s so successful. The vast majority of people don’t want a completely new experience they simply want an updated one.

6

> I honestly think that the way CoD does things is great. The developers found a formula they felt comfortable with and they found an audience that loved it as well. Then they just stuck with it. It’s the reason it’s so successful. The vast majority of people don’t want a completely new experience they simply want an updated one.

It is great, and it’s one of the reasons why CoD’s so successful. I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. MP focused games are being handled wrongly by the industry (CoD being an exception). The way the current industry appears to think is that in each sequel they must make dramatic changes. They must re-invent the wheel with each sequel or prequel. The problem with doing this though is that you’re dropping your old fanbase for a new one. People who like CE don’t necessarily like Halo 2. People who like Halo 2 don’t necessarily like Halo 3, and so forth. MP heavy games should be handled more like MMORPGS. You release one game, and then you follow that release with updates and patches to make the game even better. This is what the devs of Warsoup are thinking about doing, apparently. I applaud them if they do. It’s a step in the right direction. You could also release ‘expansions’ to the core game to add new single player experiences.

If you want something completely different, something that breaks away from the mold play a different game. Why do you play Halo when you want something different?

Currently, there’s no good Halo game that’s alive. Halo 2 and CE are good, but both lack XBL; they’re dead. 3’s way too laggy and wasn’t that great to begin with, and Reach is just-blargh! So for now I want 343 to continue making Halo. Not experimenting and breaking away from the ‘mold’ because the people that are wanting something that is actually “Halo” are left hanging. We’ve got nothing good to play online anymore! And if 343 do succeed in making something “Halo” it’d be great if they continued to support it even after the next Halo comes out (map packs, bug fixes, etc). Do that, and then I wouldn’t give a damn how much 343 screwed Halo by trying to be innovative as we’d still have a good Halo that’s hopefully supported.

7

The only thing COD has done right was make the game easy mode. If they put recoil on the weapons it would be a Battlefield type series, for a niche group of gamers.

But you can have a horrible Battlefield player, a terrible Gears players and an embarrassing Halo player jump on COD and they can pull a 2.5 k/d and get 50,000 subscribers on youtube because of the way the game is made and how the little kids fluctuate to the easy mode shooter.

It’s not easy hopping onto Halo and start slaying people left, right and centre. It takes precision and this generation of gamer doesn’t want to take the time to learn the ins and outs of a game. There is none of that in COD. Stand behind barrell, don’t move, pull trigger, killstreak, GG.

8

> > No. I want Halo for what Halo is. It’s the same reason why people want CoD for what it is, why people want Battlefield for what it is, why people want GoW for what it is, why people want any kind of sequel for what it is. It’s a very, very basic concept that some people would gladly overlook for the sake of innovation.
> >
> > Thing is, we want for because we want a good precision weapon. We want Halo because we want to strafe people and -Yoink!- them when you embarrassed them online. We want Halo because it is Halo. What you are trying to do is turn Halo into something that it’s not. When people want vanilla ice cream, the vendor isn’t going to give them chocolate. Thousands of gamers support Halo because it is Halo: not because Halo could be something else. Halo is a cultural phenomenon because of the core foundations of Halo. It’s because of the one-gun gameplay and useless AR; it’s for the power weapon--Yoink!- and the arena style maps. It’s for the smooth flow of gameplay and the fluidity of map movement and coordination. It’s not because of bloom, armor abilities, equipment, or any of that junk. It’s successful because it is what it is, not what it could be.
>
> There’s a difference between changing gameplay, and changing the game. Take your vanilla ice cream analogy, for example. If the vendor were to give you chocolate, yes, you’d be rightly upset. But if he simply gives you a different flavor of vanilla than what you expected, you can’t be upset at him for not being able to read your mind. You can simply try the new flavor, and if you like it, great. If you don’t, simply ask for a different one next time.
>
> As the OP said, change is not necessarily bad. Who are you to define what Halo is and what it isn’t? Who are you to decide what makes the game great and what doesn’t?

When I ask for vanilla, I want vanilla. I don’t want french vanilla, nor do I want chocolate chip. When I ask for vanilla, I expect him to give me vanilla, without any kind of topping on it. When I ask for Halo, I want Halo. I don’t want sprinkles or nuts on top, I want pure Halo gameplay. Change is certainly not a bad thing, but what you don’t seem to realize is that too much change makes you stray off the beaten path. When you stray off the path, you end up in a different destination.

The ice cream vendor might have made a mistake and given me french vanilla instead. I would try it, and I would like it. But does that mean I got what I wanted? No. I like CoD as well. If they would have made a game that blends in Halo style gameplay with some of CoD’s customizability, I bet it would be an interesting game. But would I call it Halo? No.

Halo has always been about the precision weapon. Give me one instance where it has not. That being said, the AR/SMG has always been a horrible counterpart to the precision weapons. Strafing was always an effective way to dodge bullets, and has been in every true Halo multiplayer. Halo has always had symmetrical, competitive multiplayer spaces that promote coordination and movement. Think I’m wrong? Go play any respectable Halo game.

These are all defining characteristics of what makes Halo multiplayer. It’s all about how the player can manipulate his weapons, grenades, and melee in order to control the map, grab power weapons and powerups, and be able to set up against the enemy so that he will win. Bloom, armor abilities, sprint, cover systems, ADS, class based gametypes, and any of that doesn’t define Halo, and it never will. Halo is unlike today’s shooters, and many believe that Halo is “outdated” and “boring” because of this. Sure, Halo doesn’t have customizable weapons or perks or the ability to aim down sights or take cover (I do not count Reach as a Halo game.) It doesn’t give you the ability to fly, kick cars, go prone, or barrel roll. Halo, at it’s core, is a very simple, competitive, one-dimensional arena-shooter. It has been like this for 9 years, and to stray away from such a successful formula is like commiting suicide and taking everyone with you.

9

> No. I want Halo for what Halo is. It’s the same reason why people want CoD for what it is, why people want Battlefield for what it is, why people want GoW for what it is, why people want any kind of sequel for what it is. It’s a very, very basic concept that some people would gladly overlook for the sake of innovation.
>
> Thing is, we want for because we want a good precision weapon. We want Halo because we want to strafe people and -Yoink!- them when you embarrassed them online. We want Halo because it is Halo. What you are trying to do is turn Halo into something that it’s not. When people want vanilla ice cream, the vendor isn’t going to give them chocolate. Thousands of gamers support Halo because it is Halo: not because Halo could be something else. Halo is a cultural phenomenon because of the core foundations of Halo. It’s because of the one-gun gameplay and useless AR; it’s for the power weapon--Yoink!- and the arena style maps. It’s for the smooth flow of gameplay and the fluidity of map movement and coordination. It’s not because of bloom, armor abilities, equipment, or any of that junk. It’s successful because it is what it is, not what it could be.

I really really like the way you think and view Halo and agree with your points. I want Halo because its Halo, not something else it could be that isn’t Halo. What do I view as Halo? CE,2,and 3. Just because Reach has the Halo title doesn’t mean I’ll call it as such.

10

> GET RID OF INVIS WALLS AND DEATH ZONES

Good idea.

> AA’s weren’t a terrible idea, equipment wasn’t a bad idea

You just lost me.

> Was Halo 2 really that good…Did we not forget the glitches, the hackers, the terrible weapon balance.

I’ve stopped taking this seriously.

11

> I don’t feel like typing out a massive response, so I’ll simplify it by a lot.
>
> A change as massive as loadouts and AA’s = bad
> A change as simple as equipment = good

The change from equipment to AAs wasn’t as big as the change from nothing to equipment.

12

To be honest, I dont know what they could change about Halo besides a couple niche weapons that would make it better. Bungie realized this so they tried adding new things to the golden triangle of combat options, but equipment and AA’s were only liked by HALF of the community the competitve community hated the gimmicks. In the future Halo will definitely see additions, but the additions need to compliment the game well while still keeping the game Halo and I dont think reticle bloom and loadouts work well with Arena-style FPS like Halo. They should look into further advancing game mechanics and adding depth to gameplay aspects I believe(like movement, weapons skill, more pick-up items,ect…)

13

i have no problem with pushing back invis walls and death zones, but a map isnt a map till it has some kind of default boundary.

Stop hating on a classic game like Halo 2. There was nothing wrong with it except people making bad desicions. Did you really just base the games quality on hackers who play it? It was a great game except the casual not-very-likely modded lobby that wasnt usually unfair, it was mostly just jumping really high, i remeber it was fun :smiley:

CoD has hackers? its still a good game, just ban who evers using them.

Dont try to make Halo a game its not, i personally thrive on people who aare wanting power weapons and teabags. Its a classic halo feel.

-AgentPaperFold