Please, help me understand why Halo needed to change so drastically.
The predominate answer I hear is that Halo was “behind the times.” It needed to catch up to “modern FPS” (like COD) and offer the same sort of experience in order to remain relevant and competitive.
By this reasoning, if Halo had remained true to form (by that I mean like Halo:CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3) then Halo:Reach and Halo 4 wouldn’t be successful, because the consumer would have been “bored” with the game.
Here’s my problem with that…
Reach and Halo 4 were locks to be successful. Hell, any “Halo” game will sell well. The trend for Halo games has always been to outsell the previous title on launch day. Halo 2 outsold CE, Halo 3 outsold Halo 2, Halo:Reach outsold Halo 3, Halo 4 outsold Halo:Reach. Do you really think Reach outsold Halo 3 because Bungie introduced Armour Abilities and Load-outs? You shouldn’t. It’s because it was the next Halo game.
Let me put it to you this way…if Reach had stayed true to form and kept that classic Halo gameplay intact would its sales have been worse? No.
So here’s my problem with Halo’s “evolution,” was it necessary?
Is Halo better off now than it would’ve been if Halo 4 was a “re-skinned” Halo 3 complete with more maps, more customization options, and that same classic Halo gameplay, only now running at 60FPS?
The best way I can put it is by actually comparing Halo to COD. Look at what Treyarch and Infinity Ward do with COD, they keep the gameplay relatively unchanged and just refine it game after game.
People scream “COD is so boring! It’s the same game!” Do we forget that it’s the most popular franchise out right now?
So why can’t Halo do the same?
Instead of Halo becoming more like COD and trying to appeal to that fan-base (which by the way is too busy playing COD to try and switch over to Halo), Bungie and 343 should have refined Halo’s classic gameplay and kept Halo in its unique niche and specific segment of the FPS genre.
Halo was so great because it was so different. Now it’s just more of the same…
Instant spawns…
Join in progress…
Load-outs…
Perks…
Specializations…
Armor Abilities…
Did all of that really have to REPLACE classic Halo?
Could we not have had both?
My biggest gripe with both Halo:Reach and Halo 4 is how drastic some of these changes affect the gameplay (IMO for the worse) and how they are shoved down our throats instead of offered along side the classic Halo experience.
I hear the chants of “Halo needed to change in order to remain competitive” and then I just shake my head and look at what franchise Halo is competing with…a franchise that has barely changed over the course of four titles. It’s so hopelessly ironic.
So again, help me understand, exactly why did Halo HAVE to change?
Why does Halo need instant spawns? Join in progress? Armor Abilities? Specializations? Load-outs?
Do we not remember how much fun Halo was without those things?
No, it didn’t need to change, and if you think it needed to I’d say you don’t know what you’re talking about. Nothing about Halo 4’s new innovations could not have drawn any more people to the franchise than if they had simply launched Halo 2 HD with multiplayer support.
There was simply no need for any of it. The question you posed is the one thing I struggle to understand as well. As dumb as it sounds, I honestly think the leads behind Halo were just simply bad at the games. It really puts it into perspective when you look at it that way…
You take out everything that made CE-Reach a game of skill then all you have left is a game that rewards bad players and makes it extremely easy for them to feel like they contribute.
And it’s not going to improve even though I hoped it would. Ranked playlists will not matter when the gameplay is inherently flawed.
I remember Halo without those things. I would get bored and irritated BTB was Slayer most of the time during the veto system days of Halo 3. Halo: Reach was no better. I’d mainly stick to FF, Living Dead, and Btb… and still btb would annoy me more than anything with the forge maps and stale slayer gameplay.
And yet here comes Halo 4. Flood is ok, but this time around I do enjoy slayer. It could be the Loadouts, Ordinance, better/fixed AAs, or just about anything they added. Of course I’m just speaking for myself, but I enjoy the things 343 brought to the table and have fun playing it by myself or with friends… besides Spartan Ops taking the place of Firefight… that was my relaxing game mode.
Honestly, I agree with you… but I also love Halo 4. I’m in a confusing spot with the game right now.
War Games has become almost a chore to play now. Maybe I’m not doing it right? I don’t know. Sops and the Campaign are awesome, but the Campaign only comes around once per game and Sops is a one-day-a-week affair.
Like I said, I don’t know.
Although I like the new changes and all, I’ve got to agree with you. Your idea that “What if it was just a reskinned version of Halo 3?”, I’d have absoluetly no problem with that.
It’s weird for me as well, because as much as I hate this game sometimes I still enjoy it. It’s just disappointing because it’s simply not Halo. If I wanted to play Call of Duty (which I don’t necessarily hate) then I would play Call of Duty. I was excited for Halo 4 because it was supposed to be Halo, and it wasn’t.
I enjoyed campaign and spartan ops might get interesting… but this is not Halo multiplayer. This is CoD in space.
The servers for Halo 3 are still running.
I don’t like CoD, and I don’t feel like Halo is CoD now. Halo still feels like Halo to me.
I’d like to see something more along the lines of Halo 3 as well.
But at least 4 isn’t as bad as Reach.
Oh dear fugging god, nowhere near as bad as Reach.
> The servers for Halo 3 are still running.
>
> I don’t like CoD, and I don’t feel like Halo is CoD now. Halo still feels like Halo to me.
Your first sentence says to me that you lack the cognitive ability to respond coherently to a reasonable question.
Your second sentence is opinion, and while valid, slightly misguided. Halo is more like COD than ever. Halo 4 still has its differences and while I do agree that Halo 4 “feels” more like Halo of old (than Reach did), the changes made to Halo 4 do resemble many gameplay aspects of COD. You are in denial (or very bad at understanding gameplay mechanics) if you think otherwise.
My question was, did these changes need to take place? And furthermore, did these changes directly impact the sales of the game or would Halo 4 (and Reach) have sold just as well (or better) if 343 and Bungie had stuck to Halo’s roots?
Try to answer the question rather than spewing the pointless fan-boy drivel I read all the time on these forums.
This isn’t a “Halo 4 totally sucks and 343 failed” thread. I want to actually discuss the reasoning behind Halo being taken in a completely different direction.
It’s not a different direction. Outside features like the (very limited) loadouts, ranks, and all that don’t change the core gameplay.
Until the actual, core gameplay is like CoD, I won’t say it’s like CoD.
> It’s not a different direction. Outside features like the (very limited) loadouts, ranks, and all that don’t change the core gameplay.
>
> Until the actual, core gameplay is like CoD, I won’t say it’s like CoD.
Surely, you can’t be serious? My jaw is on the desk right now. You’re -Yoinking!- with me right?
- Armor Abilities
- Default Sprint
- Ordinance Drops
- Customizing Starting Weapons
- Specializations/Perks
Those five things DRASTICALLY change Halo’s core gameplay.
Do I really need to explain how? I will…but it should be obvious to anyone who’s played Halo’s CE-3…
If Halo 4 would have been Halo 3 with better graphics, why would I want to buy it? Why waste $60 dollars when I could just put my Halo 3 in and play that?
> Please, help me understand why Halo needed to change so drastically.
> The predominate answer I hear is that Halo was “behind the times.” It needed to catch up to “modern FPS” (like COD) and offer the same sort of experience in order to remain relevant and competitive.
> By this reasoning, if Halo had remained true to form (by that I mean like Halo:CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3) then Halo:Reach and Halo 4 wouldn’t be successful, because the consumer would have been “bored” with the game.
> Here’s my problem with that…
> Reach and Halo 4 were locks to be successful. Hell, any “Halo” game will sell well. The trend for Halo games has always been to outsell the previous title on launch day. Halo 2 outsold CE, Halo 3 outsold Halo 2, Halo:Reach outsold Halo 3, Halo 4 outsold Halo:Reach. Do you really think Reach outsold Halo 3 because Bungie introduced Armour Abilities and Load-outs? You shouldn’t. It’s because it was the next Halo game.
> Let me put it to you this way…if Reach had stayed true to form and kept that classic Halo gameplay intact would its sales have been worse? No.
> So here’s my problem with Halo’s “evolution,” was it necessary?
> Is Halo better off now than it would’ve been if Halo 4 was a “re-skinned” Halo 3 complete with more maps, more customization options, and that same classic Halo gameplay, only now running at 60FPS?
> The best way I can put it is by actually comparing Halo to COD. Look at what Treyarch and Infinity Ward do with COD, they keep the gameplay relatively unchanged and just refine it game after game.
> People scream “COD is so boring! It’s the same game!” Do we forget that it’s the most popular franchise out right now?
> So why can’t Halo do the same?
> Instead of Halo becoming more like COD and trying to appeal to that fan-base (which by the way is too busy playing COD to try and switch over to Halo), Bungie and 343 should have refined Halo’s classic gameplay and kept Halo in its unique niche and specific segment of the FPS genre.
> Halo was so great because it was so different. Now it’s just more of the same…
> Instant spawns…
> Join in progress…
> Load-outs…
> Perks…
> Specializations…
> Armor Abilities…
> Did all of that really have to REPLACE classic Halo?
> Could we not have had both?
> My biggest gripe with both Halo:Reach and Halo 4 is how drastic some of these changes affect the gameplay (IMO for the worse) and how they are shoved down our throats instead of offered along side the classic Halo experience.
> I hear the chants of “Halo needed to change in order to remain competitive” and then I just shake my head and look at what franchise Halo is competing with…a franchise that has barely changed over the course of four titles. It’s so hopelessly ironic.
> So again, help me understand, exactly why did Halo HAVE to change?
> Why does Halo need instant spawns? Join in progress? Armor Abilities? Specializations? Load-outs?
> Do we not remember how much fun Halo was without those things?
I’m going to agree with your part that says “Why can’t we have both?” Because I do AGREE. It’d be nice to have both. Classic and Infinity.
But to sit here and say that none of these you listed should be in the game AT ALL? Nope, can’t agree with that. Infinity Slayer is the most fun I’ve had since Halo 2 post launch. And in all honestly, it feels exactly like the Halo I knew and loved, just with a fresh coat of paint.
> If Halo 4 would have been Halo 3 with better graphics, why would I want to buy it? Why waste $60 dollars when I could just put my Halo 3 in and play that?
So naive.
Look, I’m not saying port Halo 3 directly and re-brand it as "Halo 4."
"Halo 4" should have its own unique identity and add to the franchise but I’m arguing that the way 343 (or Bungie with Reach) went about that was completely misguided.
Look at how Halo 3 changed from Halo 2…would you call Halo 3 a waste of $60? It was the same gameplay - but with added features and its own identity.
That’s what I’m saying Halo:Reach and Halo 4 should have been.
ADD to the gameplay, don’t replace it.
Trust me, I believe Halo 4 is a much bigger step in the right direction as compared to Reach, but it’s still far from Halo’s golden age gameplay wise.
> > It’s not a different direction. Outside features like the (very limited) loadouts, ranks, and all that don’t change the core gameplay.
> >
> > Until the actual, core gameplay is like CoD, I won’t say it’s like CoD.
>
> Surely, you can’t be serious? My jaw is on the desk right now. You’re -Yoinking!- with me right?
> - Armor Abilities
> - Default Sprint
> - Ordinance Drops
> - Customizing Starting Weapons
> - Specializations/Perks
> Those five things DRASTICALLY change Halo’s core gameplay.
> Do I really need to explain how? I will…but it should be obvious to anyone who’s played Halo’s CE-3…
-Armor abilities are just another asset in the classic, core gameplay. I especially like the jetpack because Halo has always been about good mobility
-Default sprint makes the game faster and adds better mobility. I feel that plays to Halo’s strengths
-Ordinance drops add even more dynamics to weapon pickups which are a staple of the Halo series
-Starting weapons are all similar to starting weapons of past Halo games. Only difference is that they aren’t specific to certain gamemodes.
-Specializations/Perks are so subtle that they’re not even worth discussing
OP is an idiot.
Halo is probably the least-changed multiplayer series in modern history. Very little about the game has changed since CE… Oh noez, instead of having to roam around the map to look for a weapon that isn’t an assault rifle, I can just spawn with one. That’s such a different experience, it’s sacrilege. Gimme a break.
> Those five things DRASTICALLY change Halo’s core gameplay.
> Do I really need to explain how? I will…but it should be obvious to anyone who’s played Halo’s CE-3…[/color]
[/quote]
Last I checked; Weapons, Grenades and Melee were the core mechanics of Halo. The additional things like Armor Abilities, Vehicles and such play an incredibly minor role to the core components.
>
> But go on, explain why I am wrong oh wise Halo guru.
> OP is an idiot.
>
> Halo is probably the least-changed multiplayer series in modern history. Very little about the game has changed since CE… Oh noez, instead of having to roam around the map to look for a weapon that isn’t an assault rifle, I can just spawn with one. That’s such a different experience, it’s sacrilege. Gimme a break.
You poor soul.
> Last I checked; Weapons, Grenades and Melee were the core mechanics of Halo. The additional things like Armor Abilities, Vehicles and such play an incredibly minor role to the core components.
>
> But go on, explain why I am wrong oh wise Halo guru.
It pains me to even have to explain basic Halo fundamentals to people like you but alas, here we go…
I’ll only explain how Armor Abilities destroy Halo’s classic mechanics as they are the most detrimental to the gameplay.
Halo used to revolve around map control and weapon control. The most important aspect of the gameplay centered around being able to use both power-ups and power-weapons while preventing the opposing team from doing the same.
Both power-ups and power-weapons (as well as other weapons) were placed on-map. These on-map placements promoted a natural “flow” or movement by the players around different “hot spots” on the map.
The great thing about power-ups and weapons being placed on-map was that it was BALANCED. Each team had an equal opportunity to control certain areas of the map and the advantages (power-ups and weapons) that came with it.
This is how Halo was played CE-3.
An even greater fundamental element of core Halo gameplay is PRE-SPAWN EQUALITY.
Every single player spawned into a match on equal ground. Same weapon, same abilities. Pure balance. You had to EARN that power-weapon, that better gun, the power-up, or a certain area of the map.
Your skill decided the outcome of the game, not some superfluous elements added to even the playing field.
The addition of Armor Abilities ruined both on-map power-ups (ordinance drops and Load-outs ruined on-map power-weapons/other weapons) and pre-spawn equality.
Instead of players spawning into a game on equal footing and having to fight over and thus earn the advantage, players are given abilities and weapons before they even spawn that can tip a firefight to their advantage. What did they do to earn this? Absolutely nothing.
Right there, a fundamental aspect of Halo is destroyed. You no longer fight over advantages presented on-map, you simply get to choose them before the game even starts.
If you honestly don’t think that fundamentally changes the way Halo is played, there is no hope for you.
This is a simpleton’s explanation as well…I could go into much greater depth breaking down each armor ability and how it alters gameplay (i.e. Jetpack destroyed all semblance of map control) but there is no need.
<mark>TL;DR:</mark> Pre-spawn equality and on-map power-ups/weapons (map control) are effectively rendered null with the inclusion of Armor Abilities. This fundamentally alters the way Halo is played. This isn’t an argument. This is a fact.
Play Halo’s CE-3 (or watch gameplay online) and witness how games play-out. Now watch Reach and Halo 4 gameplay. The difference smacks you in the face. Denying this only proves your ineptided and unwillingness to admit the truth.
You have the right to enjoy the changes made and the new direction Halo is going in, but denying that any fundamental gameplay mechanics have changed from CE-3 to Halo Reach/4 is laughable.
> Could we not have had both?
This point is valid, and Halo: Reach actually did include both styles of play. Halo 4 does not though oddly.
> Did it have to change?
Why not?
> Halo has changed, players choose their advantages instead of earn them.
Aka the basic definition of a class based game. To say one is worse than the other (arena vs class based) would be flawed because they are fundamentally different types of games. Arenas are more about skill and earning advantages, class based games are more about strategy and making the most out of what you are given in certain situations.
Though I agree someone would have to be foolish to not acknowledge that changes fundamental have been made to the series.
You have already been explained why it needed to. Call of duty the most copy and paste series out there is even changing some of its “core” features. Why? Because the gaming industry is demanding more. It doesn’t matter how many people on this forum would be a re skinned old halo. It wouldn’t last. For any game series to stay around for a long time it has to make changes. Gears of war did. Its still widely played. COD has changed. Still played. Halo has changed. Still played. Battlefield has changed. Still played.
This change hasn’t hurt the series i named or halo. Its helped it grow. The only people that are getting “hurt” are people who refuse to see that change is needed in everything. Every series i mentioned still has its roots and still plays out like it used to. People are blowing things out of preportion.
Gears of war still has its gut wrenching CQC combat that its famous for. Call of duty still has its fast paced heart pounding action that is seen by lots of bodies dropping quickly and points flaring on the screen.
Battlefield still has its epic vehicle and multi role battles that its famous for.
And halo still has its AR beatdown random ragdoll physics. Its flashy explosive vehicle combat. And its in your face multikill moments its famous for.
Sure halo might be different. But its far from bad. And its still as fun as the past games. Honestly the only people iv’e known to not have fun with this game are people that can’t let go of the past.
Life tip. Everything changes. Games, food, cities, you. No one is asking you to forget the past. No one is telling you that you can’t have fond recollections of the past. But not moving on with these changes like many things in life will keep you disapointed and misrable.